- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER -CUM-SECRETARY 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. …APPELLANT (BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SUHAS S S/O SHIVASHANKARIAH K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO. 61, "AMMA" GANGADHARAPPA LAYOUT PAPAREDDY PALYA 5TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU - 560 072. 2. SRI MOHAN ARAKERI FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER CIVIL SECTION INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION US RAO SATELLITE CENTRE OLD AIRPORT ROAD DOMLURU BENGALURU - 560 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.17228/2021 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board [hereafter the Board], has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17228/2021 (S-RES) [impugned order], whereby the writ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 petition was allowed. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: "The writ petition is allowed. The selection of second respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Scheduled Caste category is quashed. Consequently, respondent No.1 is directed to move the petitioner who was selected under additional list to the main list of Scheduled Caste category candidates to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), with all consequential benefits." 2. The said writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1 [writ petitioner], impugning the final select list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) dated 24.08.2021. 3. The Board had issued a notification, inter alia, inviting applications for thirty-three posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), out of which, two posts were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The eligibility criteria as set out in the notification, required that the candidate should possess Civil Degree in Engineering or Technology. It inter alia provided that the candidate should be computer literate by passing a minimum of six months' duration course in Computer Basics. The relevant extract of the said notification pertaining to the appointment and required - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 qualifications of candidates to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), are set out below: Post & Pay Scale Educational Qualification Assistant Engineer (Civil) (29780-900-35180-1100- 47280-1400-59880-1600- 64680) Should possess a Civil Degree in Engineering Technology or equivalent qualification from a recognized University of the Union or State Government and shall be a Computer literate through passing minimum of Six months duration course in Computer basics. 4. The writ petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 who are fully qualified and eligible, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), with the Board pursuant to the aforementioned notification dated 24.08.2018. Both the said candidates claimed reservations under the Scheduled Caste category. 4. A competitive examination was also conducted and the Board published the result of provisionally selected candidates. The writ petitioner was placed in Sl.No.21 in the said list. However, the name of respondent No.2 did not feature in the said list. Subsequently, the final select list was published and the name of the respondent No.2 was included at serial number 26 and the name of the writ petitioner was placed in the additional list. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 5. It was the petitioner’s case that respondent No.2 was not eligible for being appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. Thus his name was required to be removed from the final select list. Consequently the petitioner's name ought to be included in the said list. 6. There is no dispute that respondent No.2 did not possess the requisite qualification of passing a course of a minimum duration of six months in Computer basics. According to the Board, the condition of passing Computer basics course spanning a minimum period of six months, was relaxed, by virtue of publishing draft rules. The learned Single Judge, did not accept the said contention following the principle that the eligibility criteria cannot be changed after the recruitment process had begun. The learned Single Judge also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v. Rajasthan High Court & Others : 2024 INSC 847. The relevant extract of the said decision, is set out below: "13. This Court in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] while dealing with the recruitment of Subordinate Judges of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) had to deal with the situation where the relevant rule prescribed minimum qualifying marks. The recruitment was for filling up of 15 vacancies. 40 candidates - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 secured the minimum qualifying marks (45%). Only 7 candidates who secured 55% and above marks were appointed and the remaining vacancies were kept unfilled. The decision of the State Government not to fill up the remaining vacancies in spite of the availability of candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks was challenged. The State Government defended its decision not to fill up posts on the ground that the decision was taken to maintain the high standards of competence in judicial service. The High Court upheld the challenge and issued a mandamus. In appeal, this Court reversed and opined that the candidates securing minimum qualifying marks at an examination held for the purpose of recruitment into the service of the State have no legal right to be appointed. In the context, it was held: (Subash Chander Marwaha case [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] , SCC p. 227, para 12) “12. … In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for more (sic mere) eligibility.” 14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,(2008) 3 SCC 512 at p. 524, para 27 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] . This Court in Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,(2008) 3 SCC 512 at p. 524, para 27 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36] . In none of the cases, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] considered. 15. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] , etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the “rules of the game” stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard. **** **** **** 42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 7. The second respondent did not join the services of the Board. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the writ petitioner has joined the services of the Board, there is an issue regarding his seniority list. We note that no such issue has been considered by the learned Single Judge and consequently it does not arise for consideration in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed that the writ petitioner would be placed in the main list of Scheduled Caste Category candidates and would be accorded all consequential benefits. Thus, the Board is required to conduct the necessary exercise of removing the name of the second respondent from the main list. There is no dispute that if the name of respondent No.2 was not included in the list, the writ petitioner’s name would find mention in the main list. Consequently, the writ petitioner’s name must feature in the position as it would have, if the name of respondent No.2 was not included. And, the writ petitioner is required to be accorded all benefits that may follow. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38860-DB WA No. 714 of 2025 9. We find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed. 10. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40