SRI SYED BURHAN AHAMED v. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

SRI SYED BURHAN AHAMED S/O SYED NISAR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.1 & 2, WARD NO.16 1ST CROSS, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE VISHAL NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. SRI KEERTHI KISHORE A S/O SHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA TAHSILDAR COMPOUND OPP NCC GROUP HEADQUARTERS BALLARI CANTONMENT BALLARI-583103. MS RASHMI BALGAR D/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT QUARTERS N C85 OFFICERS COLONY, HUTTI, LINGASUGUR RAICHUR DISTRICT-584115. 2

MS. HABEEBA D/O LAL AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 1212, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY DEVASUGURU, SHAKTINAGAR RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 170. (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. (BY SRI. K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PUBLICATION/NOTICE BEARING NO.ED/KEA/NEMAKAATI/CR-5123/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND FURTHER RESPONDENT CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS/ACTION TAKEN THEREON, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. (ANNEXURE-A) 19/11/2025 DATED: AND ALL IN WP NO: 573/2026 BETWEEN:

1. MALLIKARJUN M S/O NIMBAYYA M AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

3 R/AT BEHIND POST OFFICE SIRWARA, SIRWARA TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT-584129. HARSHA N S/O NAPARAJAIAH T AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.29, 3RD MAIN GKVK LAYOUT, GKVK POST YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. MANJUNATH JAVALI S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.68B JANAPRIYA ABODES 8TH CROSS, KENCHENAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560098. UMESH YADAV R N S/O R V NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MANGALAVADA POST TUMAKURU-572116. ANUP PRABHAKAR S/O T PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.194, 6TH A MAIN 15TH CROSS, A-SECTOR I PHASE, NEAR VINAYAKA PARK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064. MALLIKARJUN B S S/O BHIMARAYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.410, PRESIDENT LEON APARTMENT DUO MARVEL LAYOUT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064. ... PETITIONERS 4 (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE ) AND 1.

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. KARNATAKA STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY(KEA) 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1; SRI.K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT THE TEST/ EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 27.12.2025 AND 28.12.2025 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED: 19.11.2025 IN NO.ED/KEA /NEMAKATHI/CR-5123/2023 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE APEX COURT AND THEREFORE SAME ARE NULL AND VOID SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. IN WP NO: 953/2026 BETWEEN: SRI YASHWANTH KUMAR N S/O NANJUNDA REDDY 5 AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O #1, BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562107. (BY SRI. SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1.

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (KPCL) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAKTI BHAVAN, NO.82 RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA, FOR R1; SRI. K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. ED/KEA/RECRUITMENT/CR-5123/2023 DATED: 19.11.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-F) INSOFAR AS IT SCHEDULES A RE-EXAMINATION FOR THE COMPULSORY KANNADA LANGUAGE TEST AND PRESCRIBES AN OBJECTIVE (MCQ) MODE, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ARBITRARY, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. 6 IN WP NO: 2143/2026 BETWEEN:

SRI SHANKARA NAIK V P N S/O NAGENDRA NAIK V P AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA BELLARY DISTRICT-583 126. SRI KRISHNA GANESH B S/O B SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT VILLA NO.29, ABHIPRAKRUTHI VILLAS CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL ROAD IGGLURU TOWN, BENGALURU-560 099. SRI NAGARAJ JAVARAIAH S/O JAVARAIAH P AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.28, 7TH CROSS BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 056. SRI MANU E O S/O ESHWARAPPA S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KANCHIPURA POST HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 533. KUM. SANJANA M D/O MALLAYYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT # 180/41, LAKSHMIPURA LAYOUT BOLAMAN DHOTI ROAD RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 103. (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED 7 A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.

(BY SRI. K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PUBLICATION/NOTICE DATED: 19/11/2025 BEARING NO.ED/KEA/NEMAKAATI/CR-5123/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL /ACTION TAKEN THEREON, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. IN WP NO: 2328/2026 BETWEEN:

2. SMT. MAHALAXMI JUMANALAMATH W/O VEERESH BADNIMATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT # 22, 2ND FLOOR PRANYATEJA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHREEKANTAN LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 001. SRI SHIVAPRASAD JUMANALAMATH S/O GURAYYA C JUMANALAMATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.11, 4TH CROSS KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR HUBLI-580031.

8 SMT. HAMSA K W/O PRAKASH D AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT AT NO.34, 1ST MAIN 5TH BLOCK, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD AYYAPPA NAGARA, K R PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. SMT. RASHMI W/O JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.36, LEELA NILAYAM HALADLLI TOWN MYSURU-570026. SMT. RESHMA D/O ABDUL SAHEB NADAF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NEAR KAKATIYA SCHOOL DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY RAICHUR-584101. SMT. ANITA C/O RANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.97 SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPUR COLONY KALABURAGI-585105. SRI PARTHASARATHI A KULKARNI S/O ANILRAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.70/A SCHEME NO.33 OM BULIDNG, SHANTINAGAR, TILAKWADI BELGAUM-590006. SRI VISHWANATH C/O SOMASINGA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.T-7-479, RTPS COLONY DEOSUGUR, SHAKTINAGAR RAICHUR-584170. 9

SMT. SAVITA BANAKAR W/O SHARANABASAVA AGED BOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.12/1, 18TH MAIN II CROSS, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR BENGALURU-560021.

SMT. BHAVYA V W/O RAGHAVENDRA H V AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.301, 1ST FLOOR VIJAYALAKSHMI PARADISE 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, DASARAHALLI KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BENGALURU-560 024. (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, CORPORATE OFFICE RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012. (BY SRI. K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PUBLICATION/NOTICE DATED: 19/11/2025 BEARING NO.ED/KEA/NEMAKAATI/CR-5123/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL 10 FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS /ACTION TAKEN THEREON, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CAV ORDER These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “In W.P.Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026 & 2328/2026: a. CALL for records from the Respondents; b. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING the impugned publication / notice dated 19/11/2025 bearing No.ED/KEA/Nemakaati/ CR-5123/2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent [Annexure - A] and all further consequential proceedings / action taken thereon, to meet the ends of justice; c. PASS any other Order, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. 11 In W.P.No. 573/2026: (i) ISSUE an appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the test/examination conducted on

27.12.2025 and 28.12.2025 by the third respondent pursuant to the notification dated 19.11.2025 No.ED/KEA/Nemakathi/CR-5123/2023 which ANNEXURE-H to the writ petition are in violation of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore same are null and void; so far as Petitioner is concerned. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct fresh test as notified in the notifications dated 03.08.2017 in Nos. A1P1C(C1)/NHK and A1P1C(C1)/HK and as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 23.09.2025 in SLP No.21754/2025 which are at ANNEXURE-A and A1 to the writ petition; so far as Petitioner is concerned. (iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems it proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; and. In W.P.No. 953/2026: A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned Notification bearing No.ED/ KEA/Recruitment/CR-5123/2023

19.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 (ANNEXURE F), insofar as it schedules a re-examination for the Compulsory Kannada Language Test and prescribes an Objective (MCQ) Mode, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12 B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned Score List dated Nil (ANNEXURE-F2) published by Respondent No.3, which pertains to the illegal Kannada Language Examination held on 28.12.2025. C. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned Circular bearing No. A1P1C (C1) dated

24.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE- G2), and the Government Circular bearing No. CiAaSuE/77/HKC/2025 dated 03.06.2025 (ΑNNEXURE- G1), in so far as they arbitrarily attempt to apply a new reservation policy retrospectively the 2017 recruitment, thereby altering the Seat Allocation method for Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK) and Non-HK candidates. D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Directing the Respondents to restore and uphold the validity of the Score List

05.03.2025 bearing No.ED/KEA/KPCL/2024 (Annexure-E1), pertaining to the valid Kannada Language Examination conducted on

04.02.2025 in Descriptive Mode. E. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Directing the Respondents to prepare the Final Selection List strictly in accordance with the methodology followed in the Final Selection List dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-E2), specifically by considering Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK) candidates for Non-HK seats only if they had explicitly applied for and paid the fee for the Non-HK application and submitted specific willingness for the same, as per the rules existing at the time of the 2017 Notification. 13 F. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS As this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The W.P.Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026 are that the respondent — Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (for short, ‘KPCL’) issued a notification dated

03.08.2017, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Assistant Engineer (Civil), and Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioners submitted applications for the posts of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, and Chemical Supervisor and appeared for the written test conducted by respondent – KPCL on 21.01.2018.

3. Respondent – KPCL, by order dated

23.06.2018, cancelled the written test held on 14

21.01.2018. Subsequently, a notification dated

16.07.2018 was issued by respondent - KPCL for the conduct of a fresh written test through the Karnataka Examination Authority (for short, ‘KEA’). The cancellation of the earlier test was challenged by certain candidates in W.P.Nos.34850–34874/2018. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated

01.02.2019, upholding cancellation. Being aggrieved by the said order, writ appeals were filed in W.A.Nos.802–821/2019 and connected matter, which were also dismissed by order dated 14.10.2019.

4. The re-test was conducted by respondent – KEA on 18.02.2024, in which the petitioners participated. Respondent – KEA issued a notification dated 08.05.2024 along with the provisional score list, informing the candidates that one-third marks would be deducted for every wrong answer. Some of the candidates filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14233/2024, 15 challenging provisional

08.05.2024. The said writ petition was dismissed holding that the negative marking was a part of the earlier examination and also that the re-test held on

18.02.2024 was to be conducted on similar terms, including the application of negative marking. On the same day, respondent – KEA issued the final score list.

5. The final score list was also challenged by some of the candidates by filing W.P.No.16517/2024. The said writ petition was dismissed in the light of the order passed in W.P.No. 14233/2024. Being aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No. 16517/2024 and W.P.No.14233/2024, some of the candidates filed writ appeals in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters. By order dated 28.05.2025, the writ appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were set aside, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 16 to conduct a re-examination for all candidates who appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 pursuant notification

03.08.2017, communicating the negative marking.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, some of the candidates filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32255/2025 before the Apex Court. The SLP was dismissed. Pursuant to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters, dated 28.05.2025, the impugned notification was issued on 19.11.2025. The petitioners herein have challenged some of the conditions in the notification dated 19.11.2025.

Sri Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026 raised the following contentions: 17 (i) Firstly, in the impugned notification dated

19.11.2025, there is a condition, namely Condition No. 5, which states that there is no minimum qualifying marks for the written test. Dispensing with minimum qualifying marks is illegal, as the same is contrary to Rule 3.3.3 of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules (for short, ‘C & R Rules), which mandates the prescription of minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, the notification dated 19.11.2025 has been issued in contravention of the C & R Rules. (ii) Secondly, by not fixing minimum qualifying marks, candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (for short, ‘SCs’) and Scheduled Tribes (for short, ‘STs’) are adversely affected, since under the C & R Rules they are entitled to 5% relaxation compared to general category candidates. By dispensing with minimum qualifying marks, the respondents are nullifying the statutory benefit granted to SCs and STs 18 under the C & R Rules. The same is in violation of Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (iii) Thirdly, the C & R Rules have statutory force. By issuing a notification or circular, the respondents cannot override the provisions of the C & R Rules. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANOTHER V. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507 (paras 21 and 24); ASHISH KUMAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 (para 27); and TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS V. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 (para 65.2). (iv) Fourthly, the Government issued a Circular dated 03.06.2025 stating that, respect of 19 Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates and non-Hyderabad- Karnataka candidates, two separate notifications are required to be issued for all recruitments with effect from 03.06.2025. Pursuant to the said Circular, the respondent – KPCL issued a Circular dated

24.12.2025, clarifying that all recruitments would be conducted in accordance with the Government Circular dated 03.06.2025. However, contrary to the said Government Circular, a single notification has been issued for both Hyderabad-Karnataka and non- Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates. The contrary to the Government Circular as well as Article 371J of the Constitution of India. (v) Fifthly, condition No. 6 in the notification dated 19.11.2025 providing that for each wrong answer, one-third of the marks will be deducted is contrary to the C & R Rules. The Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court directed 20 recruitment to be conducted as per the notification dated 03.08.2017. Neither the notification dated

03.08.2017 nor the C & R Rules provided for negative marking, i.e., deducting one-third of the marks for each wrong answer or requiring candidates to shade the fifth option for unanswered questions, failing which one-third of the marks would be deducted. This condition has been introduced for the first time. It was not part of the earlier notification or the C & R Rules. The action of the respondents amounts to introducing a new condition in the midst of the selection process. It amounts to changing the Rules after the game is started. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petitions.

8. In W.P.No.953/2026 the petitioner has called in question the notification dated 19.11.2025 only in respect of conducting re-examination for Kannada Language Test. 21

9. Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to conduct a re-test for all candidates who appeared in the written test held on 18.02.2024, pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017. In W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters, the test conducted for the Kannada Language Test was not an issue. The Kannada Language Test was conducted on

04.02.2025, and the same was not set aside. Therefore, conducting a re-test for the Kannada Language Test is contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench. (ii) Secondly, in W.P.No.202497/2024 filed by Smt. Geetha Chavan, challenging the Kannada Language Test conducted by the respondents solely on the ground that no passing marks had been fixed, 22 a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated

12.12.2024, directed the respondents to re-conduct the Kannada Language Test in compliance with Rule

4.5 of the C & R Rules of KPCL, which prescribes a minimum of 100 marks for the test. Pursuant thereto, the respondents conducted the Kannada Language Test on 04.02.2025. Thereafter, the Division Bench disposed of W.A. No.1298/2024 and connected matters. Subsequently, respondents issued another notification for conducting the Kannada Language Test. This is contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the notification insofar as it relates to conducting a re-examination for the Kannada Language Test.

10. In W.P.No.573/2026, the petitioners have called in question the notification dated 19.11.2025 as 23 the same is in violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court.

Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that all the petitioners had appeared examination conducted

21.01.2018. The written examination was cancelled on

23.06.2018. Thereafter, a notification was issued, and second examination was conducted

18.02.2024. The petitioners in the present petition did not appear in the second examination. He contended that the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by certain candidates, directed the respondents to conduct a re-test as ordered by the High Court. All candidates who had taken the earlier test were entitled to appear for the re-test. Therefore, the respondents ought to have permitted the petitioners, who had appeared in the first test held in 2018, to appear for the written test. However, the respondents 24 denied the petitioners the opportunity to appear in the written test held in 2025. This is contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21754/2025. Hence, he sought allowing of the writ petition.

Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for Sri Ajay J.Nandalike for KPCL has raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, insofar as W.P.No.573/2026 concerned, the petitioners appeared for the written test in the year 2018 pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017. The written test was conducted on

21.01.2018 pursuant the said notification. Thereafter, the Corporation cancelled the examination. Subsequently, a fresh notification was issued on

16.07.2018. The petitioners in the present petition did not participate in the test conducted pursuant to the notification dated 16.07.2018. As per the directions of 25 the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters and the directions of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.21754/2025, the re-examination was to be conducted only for candidates who had appeared in the written test conducted on 18.02.2024 pursuant to the notification dated 16.07.2018. Since the petitioners neither applied pursuant to the notification dated 16.07.2018 nor appeared in the written test held on 18.02.2024, they have no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification. (ii) Secondly, insofar as W.P.No.953/2026 is concerned, it is contended that the relief sought pertains only to the re-conduct of the Kannada Language Test for candidates who had not studied Kannada at the SSLC level. The petitioners did not take the Kannada Language Test. Therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the Kannada 26 Language Test conducted for candidates who had not studied Kannada in SSLC. (iii) Thirdly, the impugned notification was issued on 19.11.2025. The written test was thereafter conducted on 27.12.2025 and 28.12.2025. The results, including the marks obtained, were announced, and only thereafter, on 13.01.2026, the present writ petition was filed. On this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (iv) Fourthly, in respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026, they appeared in the examination and only thereafter filed the present writ petitions. The notification dated

19.11.2025 clearly contained Instruction No.5, which is now under challenge. The petitioners did not challenge the said instruction immediately after issuance of the notification. Having participated in the 27 examination, they are estopped from challenging the conditions stipulated in the impugned notification. (v) Fifthly, the marks obtained examination were announced on 08.01.2026. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.2143/2026 and 2328/2026 were unsuccessful. It is only thereafter that they filed the present petitions. Once a candidate has participated in the selection process without protest, it is not open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in TAJVIR SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147 (para 38). (vi) Sixthly, the impugned notification does not prescribe any minimum passing marks for the written test, and it provides for conducting a single 28 examination for both Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non- Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates, as was prescribed in the notification dated 03.08.2017.

Pursuant to the said notification, the earlier written test was conducted on 21.01.2018, in which the petitioners participated. At that time, only certain candidates challenged the aspect of negative marking. Having accepted the conditions mentioned in the earlier notification, it is not now open to the petitioners to contend that the same are contrary to the C & R Rules. (vii) Seventhly, except for the issue relating to negative marking, all other conditions mentioned in the notification dated 03.08.2017 were affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1298/2024 and connected matters, with a direction to conduct the written test pursuant to the said notification. In compliance with the directions of the Division Bench 29 as well as the Apex Court, the impugned notification dated 19.11.2025 was issued. Therefore, petitioners cannot now challenge the instructions contained therein. (viii) Eighthly, respondent–KPCL is a Company established under the Companies Act.

The C & R Rules were framed by the Company by passing a resolution. Therefore, the Company is competent to modify the C & R Rules by passing an appropriate resolution. Accordingly, the Company passed a resolution modifying the C & R Rules, pursuant to which the notification dated 03.08.2017 was issued for conducting a common written test for Hyderabad- Karnataka and Non-Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates. The Circular dated 03.06.2025 clarifies that separate examinations for Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non- Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates are to be conducted only from the date of issuance of the said circular. 30 Since the present written test was conducted pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, in terms of the notification dated 03.08.2017, a single written test was conducted. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.

By way of rejoinder, Sri Nagarale, learned counsel appearing petitioner W.P.No.953/2026, submitted that the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the Kannada Language Test conducted by the respondent–KPCL, since, on account of the re-examination, the petitioner has been pushed down in the merit list. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in PRATAP KISHORE PANDA AND OTHERS VS. AGNI CHARAN DAS AND OTHERS, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 789; GAURAV PRADHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS, reported in (2018) 11 31 SCC 352; AND RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. SHAKTI RAJ AND OTHERS, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527.

Sri Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 2328/2026, submitted that though the C & R Rules may not have statutory force, the Rules framed by the Corporation are binding in nature and are required to be strictly followed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. MINHAS VS. INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 582.

He further contended that pursuant to the examination, a single merit list has been prepared for candidates who appeared the examination, comprising both Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non- Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates, and a single list has 32 also been prepared of those eligible to appear for document verification. This, according to him, clearly demonstrates that non-fixation of minimum passing marks adversely affects the rights of SC and ST candidates. Hence, he sought allowing of the writ petitions.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

Insofar as W.P.No.573/2026 is concerned, the petitioners participated the written conducted by the respondent–KPCL on 21.01.2018. Subsequently, by order dated 23.06.2018, respondent–KPCL cancelled the written test held on

21.01.2018. Thereafter, a notification

16.07.2018 was issued for conducting a fresh written test through the KEA. The petitioners, who had appeared in the written test conducted on 21.01.2018, did not appear for the re-test conducted by the KEA 33 on 18.02.2024, pursuant to the notification dated

03.08.2017. Certain candidates who had appeared in the written test held on 18.02.2024 challenged the notification before this Court and, having been unsuccessful, filed W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters. By order dated 28.05.2025, this Court directed the respondents to permit all candidates who had appeared for the written test on 18.02.2024, pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017, to take the re-test. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has also been confirmed by the Apex Court, which directed that the re-test be conducted in terms of the High Court’s order.

Since the present petitioners did not appear in the examination conducted on 18.02.2024, they have no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification. 34

In view of the above, W.P.No.573/2026 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Insofar as W.P.No.953/2026 is concerned, the petitioners have challenged the re-test conducted for the compulsory Kannada Language Test. As per the notification dated 03.08.2017, the Kannada Language Test is prescribed. Candidates who have not studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or an equivalent examination are required to pass the said test. The relevant portion is extracted below: “8. Kannada Language Test:

Those who have not studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or equivalent examination are required to pass a Kannada Language Test. Candidates who pass the Kannada Language test are only eligible to be considered for selection process. Date and venue of Kannada language test will be published separately in KPCL website.

35

From the above, it is clear that candidates who have not studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC are required to take the Kannada Language Test. The petitioners have not taken the Kannada Language Test. None of the candidates who appeared for the Kannada Language Test have challenged the test conducted by the respondent–KPCL. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the Kannada Language Test conducted by the KPCL by filing the present petition. In respect of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, i.e., PRATAP KISHORE PANDA vs. AGNI CHARAN DAS reported in (2015) 17 SC 789, in that case, the petitioner had challenged the mode of recruitment of the respondents who are the reserved class, by virtue retrospective regularization several of respondents gain seniority over the petitioner. Since that has direct impact on them, the Apex Court has 36 held that they have a locus to challenge the validity of the appointment of the respondents. In the case on hand, the re-examination conducted for the Kannada Language Test, which resulted in a large number of candidates becoming eligible for the written test, did not have a direct legal impact on the petitioners’ rights. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.

Further, the notification for conducting the Kannada Language Test was issued on 19.11.2025, and the examination was conducted on 28.12.2025. The writ petition was filed on 13.01.2026, after the results had been announced. Though the petitioner was aware of the notification at the time of its issuance, he has challenged the same at a belated stage. On this ground also, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P. No. 953/2026 is dismissed. 37

In respect of W.P.Nos.39094/2025, 2143/2026 and 23282026, the first respondent – KPCL issued a notification dated 03.08.2017, inviting applications for recruitment to various posts. The petitioners submitted applications for the posts of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, and Chemical Supervisor and appeared the written conducted by Respondent - KPCL on 21.01.2018.

Respondent - KPCL, by order dated

23.06.2018, cancelled the written examination held on

21.01.2018. Thereafter, a notification

16.07.2018 was issued for conducting a fresh written test through the KEA. The re-test was conducted by respondent – KEA on 18.02.2024, in which the petitioners participated. Subsequently, respondent – KPCL issued a notification dated 08.05.2024 along the provisional score list, informing candidates that one-third marks would be deducted 38 for every wrong answer. Some of the candidates filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14233/2024, challenging the provisional score list dated 08.05.2024. The said writ petition was dismissed, holding that the negative marking was a part of the earlier examination and also that the re-test held on 18.02.2024 was to be conducted on similar terms.

Being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.14233/2024, certain candidates filed writ appeals in W.A.No.1298/2024 and connected matters. By order dated 28.05.2025, the writ appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were set aside, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to conduct a re-examination for all candidates who appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2017. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1298/2024 is extracted below: 39 “(i) The writ appeals are allowed. (ii) The orders of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024 dated

12.06.2024 and in Writ Petition 16517 of 2024 dated 10.07.2024 are set aside. (iii) The Notification bearing No.ED/KEA/KPCL/2024 the Final Score List dated 12.06.2024 and the Provisional Score List dated 08.05.2024 are hereby quashed. (iv) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed conduct a re-examination expeditiously and within reasonable time for all candidates appeared in the examination on

18.02.2024 pursuant to the Notification dated

03.08.2017. (v) The re-examination conducted subject to the condition of negative marking, and such condition shall be expressly communicated to all candidates much before examination.”

This order has been confirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21754/2025 by passing the following order: 40 “2. However, we direct that in the re-test that has to be conducted as directed by the High court, all the candidates who had taken the earlier test, since quashed, shall also be entitled to take the re-test.

3. If any candidate due to passage of time has become age barred, the same shall not operate as a bar for consideration of their candidature for appointment.

4. We record submission of Mr.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka that the re-test shall be conducted within four months from date.”

It is evident that in the earlier round of litigation, the challenge was confined only to the aspect of negative marking. None of the candidates have challenged any other condition. Hence, petitioners are estopped from challenging any condition. In the notification dated 03.08.2017, insofar as the written test is concerned, no minimum 41 passing marks were prescribed. The relevant portion of the notification is extracted below:

A written test for 100 marks will be conducted in the relevant technical subjects. Questions will be of objective type with OMR sheet. The question papers will be in English version in respect of engineering cadres only whereas for Chemists/Chemical Supervisors the question paper will be in both Kannada & English.

Even with regard to conducting a written test for Hyderabad-Karnataka and Non-Hyderabad- Karnataka candidates is concerned, single written test was prescribed, none of the candidates had challenged the notification. The notification dated 03.08.2017 was challenged only insofar as it related to negative marking. All these petitioners, in the earlier round of litigation, having accepted the said notification and participated in the selection process by appearing for the written test, now estopped from challenging the 42 said conditions. This view is fortified by the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of DHANANJAY MALIK AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “7. It is not disputed respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.

8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as 43 well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.

9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.” 44

This issue is also re-iterated by the Apex Court in the case of ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357. The relevant portion is extracted below: “12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.

13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to 45 be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)

18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] .)

14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not 46 entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.

15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , the same principle was reiterated in the following observations : (SCC p. 584, para 16) “16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2009) 4 SLR 272] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712] , Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. [Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 : (2008) 3 PLJR 271] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [Amlan Jyoti 47