Legislature Cannot Overturn Court-Ordered Cancellation of Tainted Recruitment, Rules Supreme Court in Srinivasa T v. State of Karnataka
Case: Srinivasa T v. State of Karnataka and Others
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Court Observation
“We have no doubt in our minds that the subject legislation is unconstitutional.”
Summary
The Supreme Court has struck down the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which had revived a recruitment process already cancelled over corruption and nepotism. The Court held that once the cancellation of the recruitment had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the legislature could not undo it by enacting a validating law.
As a result, the appointments made under the 2022 Act will come to an end. The Court rejected pleas to protect the selected candidates on equitable grounds, holding that there could be no equity in favour of candidates selected through a recruitment declared tainted. It directed the State to notify the existing Group A and Group B vacancies under the current recruitment rules, and ordered age relaxation for untainted candidates and for those who had approached the Court and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
Key Holdings
- A legislature cannot nullify a final judgment of a constitutional court by enacting a law that simply overturns the judgment; the power does not lie with the legislature to annul a cancellation upheld by constitutional courts.
- There is a distinction between permissible retrospective legislation that removes the basis of a judicial decision and legislation that directly annuls a final judgment; the 2022 Act fell in the second category.
- No equity can be claimed by candidates selected through a recruitment found tainted by corruption and nepotism, especially where the appointment rests on a stillborn legislation.
- A public interest litigant cannot withdraw proceedings as a matter of right without the court’s permission, and a constitutional court can examine a substantial challenge even without the original petitioner’s participation.
Directions Issued
- The Karnataka government must notify the existing vacancies in the Group A and Group B services in accordance with the current recruitment rules, rather than under the old rules.
- Age relaxation must be granted to untainted candidates and to those who had approached the Court and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
Background
The dispute concerned a notification dated 3 November 2011 for recruitment to 362 Group A and Group B posts through the Karnataka Public Service Commission. A CID inquiry revealed gross manipulation, corruption and nepotism, including communications between candidates and commission members and identical interview marks awarded without objective individual assessment. The State cancelled the recruitment, and the cancellation was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The legislature nevertheless enacted the 2022 Act reviving the selection, under which 191 candidates received appointments, including 14 found tainted by the CID. A public interest litigation challenging the Act was dismissed by the High Court in 2022, and a further challenge by unsuccessful candidates also failed there, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
Related Articles
- Can Failed Candidates Challenge a Recruitment Process? Gauhati HC Rules on Law Officers’ Selection
- Fraud-Tainted Bengaluru Land Acquisition Quashed, Rules Supreme Court
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
