- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAINING) AND MEMBER SECRETARY, PSIs RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) AND: SRI MANJUNATH V UDIKERI S/O VIRUPAKSHA GOWDA UDIKERI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PLOT NO.20, SIDESWARA KRUPA, RAJATHAGERI, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH ANNX-A ORDER DATED 14.07.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1099 OF 2006. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner – the State represented by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training) and Member Secretary, PSIs Recruitment Committee is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.07.2017 in Application No.1099/2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) allowing the respondent’s application directing the petitioner herein to consider the candidature of the respondent herein and to issue appointment order to the respondent in pursuance to notification dated 07.06.2004 for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil). 2. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for petitioner. Though Court notice is served on the respondent, the respondent remained absent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 3. The petitioner herein under notification dated 03.06.2004 and 07.06.2004 (Annexure-B) invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil). The respondent applied and participated in the selection process. It is stated that 12,738 candidates appeared for the written examination. The respondent had scored 90 out of 100 in Paper-II and in the same Belgaum Centre, other three candidates from Belgaum had scored 90 out of 100. It is stated at the time of valuation, it was found that there was malpractice during the examination by the respondent and other two candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with endorsement dated 17.02.2005 disqualifying the respondent and debarring him for three years for unfairness in the written examination held on 11.10.2004. The said endorsement was the subject matter of Application No.1145/2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 11.08.2005 allowed the said application and directed State Authorities to issue fresh notice to the respondent and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 on receipt of the reply, to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner issued endorsement dated 21.11.2005 holding that the respondent along with one Sri.Basappa Irappa Jakati and Sri.B.S.Sridhar malpracticed in the written examination to the post of Police Sub-Inspector and the same is established. As such, the respondent’s candidature was rejected. Questioning the said endorsement, the respondent was before the Tribunal in Application No.1099/2006. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 14.07.2017 allowed the application with a direction to issue appointment order to the respondent for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) in pursuance to notification dated 07.06.2004. Questioning the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner-State is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga would contend that the Tribunal failed to take note of the grounds raised by the petitioner and further she submits that in an identical application by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 other candidate in Application No.800/2006, the Tribunal has passed contrary order rejecting the application of the other candidate by order dated 26.02.2018. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the endorsement under challenge dated 21.11.2005 itself is self-explanatory and the malpractice by the respondent is established beyond doubt. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner was issued with notice in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal and on receipt of reply by the respondent, the impugned endorsement is issued. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the answers of the respondent as well as two others were found similar and on comparison of answer papers of all the three candidates, the respondent authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that they have copied each other answers. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 5. Having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, “Whether the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the application and quashing the endorsement with a direction to issue appointment order to the respondent for the post of Police Sub- Inspector (Civil)?” 6. Answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons: The petitioner is served with Court notice and he has remained absent. 7. The endorsement under challenge dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure-A5), as stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate is self-explanatory. The endorsement on comparison of answer papers of the respondent as well as one Sri.B.S.Sridhar and Sri.Basappa Irappa Jakati, the authorities have found as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 “¤ªÀÄä GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw ºÁUÀÄ ²æà ©.J¸ï.²æÃzsÀgï gÀªÀgÀ GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwæPÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (1) ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀwæPÉ-2gÀ ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ ‘J’ ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è K¼ÀÄ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ½UÉ CAzÀgÉ ¥Àæ±Éß ¸ÀASÉå 6, 21, 27, 41, 58, 79 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 91 UÀ½UÉ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄwÛÃj. F K¼ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è, ¤ªÀÄä LzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¥Àæ±Éß ¸ÀASÉå 6, 21, 41, 58 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 79 UÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ ‘©’ ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ±Éß ¸ÀASÉå 59, 74, 94, 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 32 ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ©.J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgï gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwÛPÉAiÀÄ ‘¹’ ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ±Éß ¸ÀASÉå 24, 39, 59, 76 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 97 UÀ¼À°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ LzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæªÀħzÀÞªÁV MAzÉà DUÀÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (2) ¤ªÀÄä 05 vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è, ¤ÃªÀÅ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ LzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄÄ CAzÀgÉ 6-D, 21-A, 41-A, 58-A ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 79-C UÀ¼À°è ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw gÀªÀgÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ £Á®ÄÌ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ 59-D, 74-A, 94-A ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11-A UÀ½UÉ PÀæªÀħzÀݪÁV ºÉÆð¹zÀÝ°è MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ©.J¸ï.²æÃzsÀgïgÀªÀgÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀ LzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ 24-D, 39-A, 59-A, 76-A ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 97-C UÀ½UÉ ºÉÆð¹zÀÝ°è J¯Áè LzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÁÝVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Á©üÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁªÀÄ£Àå vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼À vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå vÀgÀºÀzÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼À vÀÄ®£ÁvÀäPÀ «ªÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖ ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ «. GqÀÄPÉÃj ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwæPÉ ‘J’ ±ÉæÃt ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwæPÉ ‘©’ ±ÉæÃt ²æà ©.J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgï ¥Àæ±Éß ¥ÀwæPÉ ‘¹’ ±ÉæÃt ±ÉæÃt DAiÉÄÌ ±ÉæÃt DAiÉÄÌ ±ÉæÃt DAiÉÄÌ 6 D 59 D 24 D 21 A 74 A 39 A 27 C 80 ¸Àj GvÀÛgÀ 45 ¸Àj GvÀÛgÀ 41 A 94 A 59 A 58 A 11 A 76 A 79 C 32 A 97 C 91 A 44 ¸Àj GvÀÛgÀ 9 ¸Àj GvÀÛgÀ (3) EvÀgÉà E§âgÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ªÉåAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£É E¤ßvÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆð¹zÀ°è ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀWÀl£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀzÉà MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ HºÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÀÆÌ «ÄV¯ÁV ¥ÀjÃPÁë PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄƪÀgÀÆ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ M§âgÀ »AzÉ M§âgÀAvÉ PÀƽwgÀÄwÛÃj. (4) ¤ÃªÀÅ, ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ©.J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgï ¥ÀjÃPÁë PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è M§âjAzÉƧâgÀAvÉ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuɬÄAzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ®èzÉà ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀwæPÉ-1gÀ°è 50 CAPÀUÀ½UÉ 16 CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiËTPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è 7.5 CAPÀUÀ½UÉ 1.57 CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ Cwà PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀ½¹zÀÄÝ, 05 MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ½UÉ vÀ¥ÀÄà GvÀÛgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝ®èzÉ ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉÆð¹zÀÝ°è 04 vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ©.J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgïgÀªÀjUÉ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 ºÉÆð¹zÀÝ°è 05 vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄÄ PÀÆqÀ MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå vÀ¥ÀÄà DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ²æà §¸À¥Àà FgÀ¥Àà dPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ©.J¸ï. ²æÃzsÀgï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆr C£ÀÄavÀ ªÀvÀð£É vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸À ¸ÀAzÉúÁwÃvÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä C¨sÀåyðvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À®ÄªÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÁzsÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.” 8. The authorities on examination of the factual position and answers of the three candidates have arrived at a conclusion that the respondent along with two others malpracticed in the written examination of Police Sub- Inspector (Civil) in pursuance to notification dated 03/07.06.2004. This Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the endorsement which is issued on scrutiny of factuals. Moreover, the petitioner is provided opportunity to defend himself in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation. At this length of time, as subsequently several recruitments have taken place, the Tribunal could not have allowed the application of the respondent. The Tribunal could not have gone into the correctness or otherwise of the reasons assigned by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35991-DB WP No. 43 of 2019 the petitioner in the impugned endorsement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the endorsement issued by the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Impugned order dated 14.07.2017 in Application No.1099/2006 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7