Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Order Date: 16 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: a large group of candidates (assistant engineers, junior engineers, teachers, assistant professors, police sub‑inspectors, etc.) who applied for various State service posts under the reservation framework of Article 371J.
- Respondents: State of Karnataka (represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms; Principal Secretary, various departments; Karnataka Examination Authority; Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited; and other departmental officials).
- Core dispute: Whether the Government Circular dated 01‑02‑2023, which altered the order of consideration between the Local Cadre and the Residual Parent Cadre for Hyderabad‑Karnataka (Kalyana‑Karnataka) candidates, unlawfully changed the “rules of the game” mid‑process, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the 2013 Order/Rules under Article 371J.
- Procedural history: The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) set aside the circular in several applications (e.g., Nos. 2688/2023, 956/2023, 10432/2023). The State appealed those decisions. Separate applications (WP‑16343/2024 and WP‑863/2024) sought to uphold the circular; the Tribunal had upheld it.
- The High Court considered the Tribunal’s findings, the constitutional scheme of Article 371J, the 2013 Presidential/Governor’s Order, the 2014 Rules, and the Supreme Court precedents on “changing the rules of the game” (e.g., Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court).
Final Outcome
1. The Court allowed the following writ petitions and set aside the Circular dated 01‑02‑2023 as applied to those recruitments: WP‑1464/2024, WP‑52772/2019, WP‑23162/2023, WP‑23450/2023, WP‑27336/2023, WP‑27517/2023, WP‑28614/2023, WP‑29056/2023, WP‑1633/2024, WP‑1900/2024, WP‑2034/2024, WP‑7927/2024, WP‑9473/2024, WP‑24251/2024, and WP‑24410/2024 (a total of fifteen petitions).
2. The Court dismissed WP‑16343/2024 and WP‑863/2024, thereby upholding the Tribunal’s orders that the circular was valid in those specific matters.
3. The Court directed the concerned recruiting authorities to prepare revised provisional and final selection lists for the affected recruitments, strictly adhering to:
- the original recruitment notifications,
- the 2013 Order and 2014 Rules governing Local and Residual Parent Cadres,
- the merit‑based ranking,
- the reservation roster, and
- the cadre‑option choices exercised by candidates.
The courts emphasized that the marks and eligibility criteria of candidates shall not be reopened; only the cadre‑allocation procedure is to be revisited.
4. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.
Topics: Reservation Policy, Public Employment, Constitutional Law