Partly allowed

Smt. Bhavya B.S. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2026WP/26642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPSC deleted a Lecturer in Physics from its final select list via a revised select list issued over two years after her appointment, without notice or any provision cited. The High Court held deletion caused serious civil consequences, relied on Supreme Court precedent protecting innocent appointees of official error, set aside the Tribunal's rejection, declared the deletion illegal, and directed

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order dated 16.11.2023 set aside; deletion of petitioner's name declared illegal; she is continued as Lecturer Physics per select list dated 11.05.2020; respondent No.5's selection not interf

Smt. Bhavya B.S. Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 26642 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BHAVYA B.S. W/O SRI YUVARAJA B. C., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS PHYSICS LECTURER, MINORITY MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, GURUMARNAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116.

¶10

AND RESIDING AT: IMPANA NILAYA, AMBIKA NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR GURUBHAVAN, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MINORITIES, MAULANA ABDUL KALAM AAZAD BHAVAN, NO.16 C, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560052.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶19

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOG SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL MINORITY MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL, PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, GURUMARNAHALLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573116.

¶21

MS. BHAGYASHRI LANDE C/O MIRAJKAR AUTOMOBILES, CHIKKERUR, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI – 581111.

¶22

MS. SAVITRI KUMBAR AT POST AINAPUR, ATHANI TALUK, KUMAR GALLI, BELAGAVI – 591303.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADV. FOR R3 SRI RABHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADV. FOR R5 R4 & R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 16/11/2023 IN APPLICATION NO.4714/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.PSC 22 RTB 2017 DATED 30/09/2023 (REVISED FINAL SELECT LIST) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT AND NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.PSC 22 RTB 2017 DATED 30/09/2023 (REVISED ADDITIONAL SELECT LIST) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R PUBLISHED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT KPSC AND ETC

¶26

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 23.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶28

¶29

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶30

CAV ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶32

The above writ petition is by unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal questioning order dated 16.11.2023 in Application No.4714/2023 rejecting petitioner’s prayer to quash revised final select list published under notification dated 30.09.2023 and revised additional select list dated 30.09.2023 of the cadre of Lecturer in Physics.

¶33

Brief facts leading to the above writ petition are that, the respondent-KPSC issued notification dated 23.03.2018 calling applications to fill up various posts in the Morarji Desai Pre-University Residential Colleges including that of Lecturer in Physics. The petitioner with qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., and M.Sc., applied for the post of Lecturer in Physics claiming reservation under II-A Women category. It is the case of the petitioner that she participated in the selection process by writing the competitive examination wherein she secured 139 marks including interview marks. It is stated that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Lecturer in

¶34

¶35

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶36

Physics under II-A, Women category and the name of the petitioner found place at Sl.No.6. After considering the objections received to the provisional select list, the third respondent – KPSC published final select list on 11.05.2020 wherein also, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.6.

¶37

It is stated that the petitioner was informed by endorsement dated 22.05.2020 that she has been selected

¶38

as Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with order of appointment dated 08.07.2021 as Lecturer in Physics and was posted to Morarji Desai Residential Pre-University College, Gurumaranahalli, Channarayanapatna Taluk. It is stated that the petitioner reported to duty on 12.07.2021 and she was working as such.

¶39

4. After petitioner’s appointment and more than

¶40

two years from the date of publication of final select list, the third respondent – KPSC published revised final select list dated 30.09.2023 deleting the name of the petitioner

¶41

¶42

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶43

and including the name of 5^th respondent under CategoryIIA, Women. Questioning the revised final select list dated 30.09.2023, the petitioner was before the Tribunal and Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s prayer observing that in the absence of necessary parties, application is not maintainable and as the petitioner has not made any prayer to include her name in the revised select list. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶44

Heard learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt.M.R.Sinchana, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶45

Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is selected and appointed as Lecturer in Physics under IIA-Women category in pursuance to the final select list dated

¶46

¶47

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶48

11.05.2020, which was in accordance with the relevant Rules. The petitioner has worked for more than two years and without providing any opportunity, she has been deleted from the final select list dated 11.05.2020. Further, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules, 2006 (for short, ‘Rules, 2006’) would not provide for preparation of revised final or additional select list. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is working for more than two years, he prays for saving of the appointment of the petitioner and places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in that regard. Further, he submits that there is no fault or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the selection process. As such, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3

¶50

– KPSC referring to the affidavit dated 16.02.2026 of the Secretary, KPSC would submit that the petitioner has

¶51

¶52

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶53

secured only 30.8888% whereas respondent No.5 had secured 35.2222% and admittedly, respondent No.5 is more meritorious than the petitioner in the II-A, Women category. Learned counsel would further submit that due to a genuine oversight, the petitioner was selected without proper verification and as such, the Commission published a revised select list on 30.09.2023, wherein the name of the petitioner got deleted. Further, learned counsel would submit that the officials who were responsible for such discrepancy have been issued with show cause notice and warning has been issued.

¶54

Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayatri for respondent No.5 would submit that the fifth respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner under II-A, Women category and she would be entitled for selection as against the petitioner. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶55

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition

¶56

¶57

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶58

papers, the points which falls for our consideration are as

¶59

to,

¶60

a) Whether the petitioner would be entitled to continue as Lecturer in Physics, in pursuance to her appointment order dated 08.07.2021?

¶61

b) Whether the order of the Tribunal requires interference?

¶62

Answer to both the above points would be in

¶63

the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶64

The respondent – KPSC in pursuance to notification dated 28.03.2018 invited applications to fill up various posts including that of Lecturer in Physics in Morarji Desai Residential Pre-University College. The petitioner with qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., and M.Sc., applied for the post of Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category. She participated in the competitive written examination and got selected in the provisional select list published under notification dated 10.03.2020, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.6 under II-A, Women category. The provisional select list provided an opportunity to the affected candidates to file objections.

¶65

¶66

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶67

Thereafter, final select was published on 11.05.2020 wherein also, the petitioner got selected and she was placed at Sl.No.6 under II-A Women category. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category by O.M., dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure-N) and she was posted to Morarji Desai Residential PreUniversity College, Channarayapatna, Hassan District.

¶68

However, more than two years after the petitioner’s appointment, revised final select list dated 30.09.2023 was published by third respondent and revised additional list dated 30.09.2023 was also published in respect of Lecturer in Physics. The said revised final select list is without providing any opportunity to the petitioner or to other candidates who have already been selected under the final select list published on 11.05.2020 and appointed and working under O.M., dated 08.07.2021. Deleting the name of an appointee from final select list would result in serious civil consequences. In that, she would be deprived of employment and she would also be deprived of her livelihood. Moreover, there is no fault or

¶69

10 -

¶70

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶71

misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in her selection and appointment. For the mistake of officials of the third respondent – KPSC, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, that too, after more than two years of her appointment and working.

¶72

The third respondent – KPSC is very casual in

¶73

its approach, that too, while deleting the name of the selected and appointed candidate from the final select list. The affidavit filed by the Secretary, KPSC dated 16.02.2026, paragraph 10 reads as follows:

¶74

“10. The Karnataka Public Service Commission, due to a genuine oversight, selected the petitioner without proper verification of the candidate’s marks and prepared the selection list. The said selection was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred purely by mistake human error.”

¶75

The affidavit of the same Secretary dated

¶76

20.02.2026, paragraphs 4 to 7 reads as follows:

¶77

“4. I submit that, on the direction issued in the proceedings of the Commission, the show cause notices came to be issued on 07.09.2023 to Smt.

¶78

11 -

¶79

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶80

Shobha Basavaraj, who was working as the system analyst and Smt. H.M Latha, who was working as the Junior Programmer (Computer Branch). The copies of the show cause notice are produced and marked as Documents No.6 and 7 .

¶81

5. I submit that, Smt. Shobha Basavaraj, who was working as the system analyst, filed her reply to the show cause notice on 11/09/2023, and the reply of Smt. H.M Latha, who was working as the Junior Programmer (Computer Branch) on 08/09/2023. The copy of the replies dated 11/09/2023 and 08/09/2023 are produced and marked as Documents No.8 and 9.

¶82

6. I further submit that, after considering the reply, a warning came to be issued to both the said erring officials. The copy of the warning notices dated 09/10/2025 is produced and marked as Document Nos. 10 and 11.

¶83

7. I further submit that one of the erring officials, Smt. Shobha Basavaraj, in another instance, was placed under suspension, and a departmental enquiry was initiated, and the findings have been kept in a sealed cover and placed before the Commission for its decision on the same. In the meantime, the said erring officer, Smt. Shobha Basavaraj has superannuated from service on 31.05.2025. A copy of the notification

¶84

12 -

¶85

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶86

bearing no. PSC 176/EST/2022-23/250, dated 31/05/2025, is produced and marked as Document No.12. ”

¶87

A reading of the portion of the above affidavit of the Secretary, KPSC indicates the manner in which the selection process is being handled. Mistake of the officials of the KPSC has given rise to a hope and life to the petitioner. But, subsequent action of the respondent No.3 – KPSC in deleting the name of the petitioner from the final select list of Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category that too, after more than two years of her appointment has shattered the hope and life of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has lost her opportunities of selection to any other public employment, which cannot be restored at this stage.

¶88

For the mistake of the officials of the KPSC, the officials have been only warned and no punishment is inflicted on them and on the other hand, the petitioner has been made to suffer for no fault of hers. It is true that, but for the mistake of the officials of the third respondent –

¶89

13 -

¶90

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶91

KPSC, the petitioner would not have got selected. But, the mistake of the officials of third respondent – KPSC has resulted in selection and appointment of petitioner and she is working for more than two years as on the date of publication of revised final select list. The Hon'ble Apex Court on previous occasions, in identical fact situations has taken a sympathetic view when a candidate was selected wrongly due to no fault of his and when many years had lapsed since the selection process. In VIKAS PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGAR¹ , in an identical fact situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 22, 25, 26 to 28 has held as under:

¶92

“ 22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari

¶93

1 (2013) 14 SCC 494

¶94

14 -

¶95

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶96

Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] , S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94] .) It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (see Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726:2002 SCC (L&S) 606]; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] ).

¶97

Xxxxxxx

¶98

25. This Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC 78] although recorded a finding that appointments given under the “wait list” were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more).

¶99

15 -

¶100

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶101

26. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar [(2001) 3 SCC 328 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 589 : (2001) 2 SCR 18] even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed: (SCC p. 331, para 6)

¶102

“6. … We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period….” (See M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar [(1993) 3 SCC 591 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 986 : (1993) 25 ATC 91 : (1993) 2 LLJ 1159] and Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. [(2009) 1 SCC 768 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] )

¶103

27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon reevaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.

¶104

28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are

¶105

16 -

¶106

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶107

efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.”

¶108

It is not made known whether the fifth respondent had filed objections to the provisional select list published on 10.03.2020 and why the fifth respondent had not challenged her non-selection in pursuance to the final select list published under notification dated 11.05.2020. It is also not made known by KPSC, under which provision KPSC exercised its power to publish revised final select list, after more than two years of selection and appointment. The only reason indicated in the affidavit of the Secretary of the third respondent – KPSC is that they noticed the mistake while preparing the additional select list. But, that cannot be a reason to revise

¶109

17 -

¶110

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶111

the final select list published earlier, without providing any opportunity that too, when the fifth respondent had not challenged the petitioner’s appointment and when she has failed to file any objection to the provisional select list published on 10.03.2020.

¶112

The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing

¶113

the application on the ground that necessary parties have not been impleaded while challenging the revised select list. However, the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has impleaded candidate who is selected in her place as fifth respondent, which would be more than sufficient to examine the claim of the petitioner.

¶114

For the reasons recorded above, the following:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

a) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶117

b) Order dated 16.11.2023 in Application

¶118

No.4714/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside.

¶119

18 -

¶120

WP No. 26642 of 2023

¶121

c) Deletion of petitioner’s name in the revised final

¶122

select list dated 30.09.2023 of Lecturer in Physics under II-A Women category is declared as illegal.

¶123

d) The petitioner shall be continued as Lecturer in Physics, in pursuance to the final select list dated 11.05.2020 and appointment O.M., dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure-A).

¶124

e) However, selection of fifth respondent as Lecturer in Physics under revised select list dated 30.09.2023 is not interfered with. It is open for the Government – respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider case of the respondent No.5 for appointment, if vacancies are available.

¶125

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶126

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶127

NC CT:bms

Smt. Bhavya B.S. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhavya B.S. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs H N Thimmeowda

Sri Siddappa H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shashidhara S., Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs M/S Tmk Traders

Doddahanumantharayappa Vs Addl Chief Secretary to Government

The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax-Gst Vs Mphasis Ltd.