Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagabhushan D Goudar vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited ... on 2 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18166
WP No. 4356 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4356 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGABHUSHAN D. GOUDAR,
S/O DUNDAPPA S. GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: GURUBASAVA NILAYA,
SECTOR 62, PLOT NO. S-69/70, SANJIVINI BADAVANE,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
KARNATAKA - 587 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (KPCL)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE DIRECTOR (HR),
CHANDANA
BM KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
Location: NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
High Court BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
of Karnataka
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N. K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18166
WP No. 4356 of 2026
HC-KAR
TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2026 OF THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY CONSIDER
PETITIONER'S STUDY OF KANNADA AT THE PRE-UNIVERSITY COURSE
(PUC) LEVEL AND/OR HIS KPSC KANNADA LANGUAGE TEST
CERTIFICATE AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE
REQUIREMENT OF THE 2017 RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
" a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to consider the representation dated:
06.02.2026 of the petitioner vide Annexure-H and
consequently consider petitioner's study of Kannada at the Pre-University Course (PUC) level and /or his KPSC Kannada Language Test certificate as sufficient compliance with the language requirement of the 2017 Recruitment Notification.
b) In the Alternative, issue a direction to the Respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for a remedial Kannada Language Test, as provided for in the notification, by issuing a specialized hall ticket and conducting the same within a stipulated time frame.
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in -3- NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR the final selection list for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)-NHK Cadre, based on his merit score of 65.671, and issue an appointment letter subject to other eligibility criteria."
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-
On 03.08.2017, the 2nd respondent - Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) issued a Modified Recruitment Notification inviting applications from competent qualified personnel for 622 posts of AE / JE / Chemist / Chemical Supervisor. Clause No.8 of the said Notification prescribed "Kannada Language Test"
as an eligibility criteria interalia stating that those who had not studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or equivalent examination (CBSE/ICSE) are required to pass Kannada language test to be conducted by the 2nd respondent - KPCL and that it was only those candidates who passed the Kannada language test, would be eligible to be considered for the selection process and that the date and venue of the Kannada language test would be published separately in the KPCL website.
2.1 The petitioner who had completed 10th standard under the CBSE Board submitted online application on 18.08.2017, -4- NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR wherein he marked the digital check box which asked "studied Kannada in SSLC or equivalent exams" as "Yes". The selection process pursuant to the 1st selection examination conducted by the 2nd respondent - KPCL was cancelled on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, as per the directions which were issued by this Court, whereby the 3rd respondent - KEA was assigned the task of conducting re-examination for the aforesaid 622 posts. In pursuance of which, re-examination / 2nd examination was conducted on 18.02.2024.
2.2 The 2nd examination / re-examination also became the subject matter of litigation before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1298/2024, whereby the Division Bench directed re-examination / 3rd examination to be conducted by the respondents 2 and 3 and the petition in SLP No.21754/2025 was dismissed by the Apex court on 23.09.2025. It was contended by the petitioner that meanwhile, the petitioner cleared the KPSC Kannada language test on 20.01.2024 and subsequently, received his final KPSC Kannada Proficiency Certificate 23.12.2025 which was valid until 2027. Subsequent to the dismissal of SLP No. 21754/2025 as stated supra, the 2nd respondent - KPCL called for -5- NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR 3rd examination which was conducted on 27.12.2025 and 28.12.2025 and the petitioner who was short listed attended the document verification on 30.01.2026. It is contended that the document verification checklist recorded the remark "not studied Kannada in SSLC" as "No" under the certificate as per requirement, as a result of which, the petitioner having not studied Kannada as one of the subject in his 10th standard CBSE Board examination was found not to be eligible or qualified to be selected and since the representation dated 06.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. The 2nd respondent - KPCL has filed its statement of objections disputing the various allegations and claim made by the petitioner and interalia contending that the petitioner had consciously ticked "Yes" in the column relating to clause - 8 of the Modified Recruitment Notification which prescribed and mandated that candidates have to study Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or equivalent examination (CBSE/ICSE) and such of those candidates who has not studied Kannada, are required to pass a Kannada language test. It is contended that the petitioner having -6- NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR ticked "Yes" in the said column relating to clause No.8 of the Notification had clearly declared that he had studied Kannada in his 10th standard (CBSE) and since his CBSE marks card for 10th standard did not contain Kannada as one of the subjects, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification or eligibility criteria for selection. It was also contended that merely because the petitioner had studied Kannada as one of the subjects in II PUC, the same would not dispense with the eligibility criteria of having studied Kannada in the 10th standard as per the Notification. It was further contended that the KPSC Kannada language test said to have been cleared by the petitioner and the proficiency certificate said to have been obtained by him will not meet or fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria of having studied Kannada as one of the subjects in his 10th standard CBSE examination and the Rules and Regulations governing the selection process as per the Modified Recruitment Notification dated 03.08.2017, cannot be altered or modified to suit the requirement or convenience of the petitioner who is not entitled to any relief in the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder reiterating the various contentions urged in the writ petition and contended that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petition.
5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel submitted that while filling up of the online application, the petitioner marked the checkbox in relation to clause No.8 as "Yes" under the bonafide impression that since he had passed II PUC with Kannada as one of the subjects, the same was sufficient compliance of the requirement of having studied Kannada in SSLC also and accordingly, did not take up the Kannada language test conducted by the 2nd respondent - KPCL. It was submitted that the said error committed by the petitioner was inadvertent error and since the petitioner had subsequently passed the KPSC Kannada language test, the respondents are to be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of selection and include his name in the final selection list -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR and issue appointment letter in his favour by allowing the present petition. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar - (2024) 11 SCC 785;
(ii) Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission
- (2010) 15 SCC 596;
(iii) Hemant Kumar vs. State of Karnataka -
W.P.No.24847/2022 dated 31.01.2023;
(iv) Dr.Lakshmi P. Gowda vs. National Board of
Examinations - W.P.No.12859/2023 dated
10.08.2023;
(v) Sajidkhan vs. L.Rehamatulla - 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 376.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others - (2019) 2 SCC 404;-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR
(ii) Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others - (2011) 12 SCC 85 and
(iii) State of Punjab & others vs. Anita and others - (2015) 2 SCC 170.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to refer to clause No.8 of the modified recruitment notification dated 03.08.2017, which is as hereunder:-
" 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 selected process. • Date and venue of Kannada Language test will be published separately in KPCL Website."
10. It is an undisputed fact that one of the eligibility / qualification criteria prescribed and mandated under clause 8 is for the candidate who has studied Kannada as one of the subjects in SSLC or equivalent examination (CBSE / ICSE) and all candidates who did not study Kannada as one of the subjects were required to
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR pass Kannada language test to be conducted by the 2nd respondent - KPCL. In this context, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not studied Kannada in his 10th standard (CBSE) as can be seen from his CBSE 10th standard marks card. It follows therefrom that the petitioner did not meet or fulfil the requisite eligibility / qualification criteria as prescribed in clause 8 of the Modified Recruitment Notification and consequently, the petitioner would not be eligible / qualified to be selected to the post applied for by him and his contention in this regard cannot be accepted.
11. A perusal of the online application submitted by the petitioner will indicate that the petitioner had ticked the digital check box "Studied Kannada in SSLC or equivalent exam (CBSE/ICSE) as "Yes", thereby indicating that the petitioner had declared that he had studied Kannada in his 10th standard CBSE examination, which is factually incorrect and erroneous inasmuch as Kannada was not one of the subjects studied by the petitioner as can be seen from his 10th standard CBSE marks card. In this context, the petitioner specifically contends that he had ticked "Yes" to the said requirement / digital check box pertaining to clause 8 on the assumption that since he had studied and passed Kannada in the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR II PUC examination, the same would constitute sufficient compliance of the requirement of having taken and studied Kannada as one of the subjects in his 10th standard CBSE examination.
12. In my considered opinion, having regard to the specific language employed in clause 8 of the Modified Recruitment Notification which has to be strictly interpreted and does not encompass higher qualifications like PUC, merely because the petitioner had studied and passed Kannada in PUC, the said circumstance cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to contend that he had studied Kannada in 10th standard CBSE examination also, particularly when the said specific requirement of having studied Kannada as one of the subjects in 10th standard was incorporated in clause 8 so as to ensure foundational proficiency from the primary and secondary school stages and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. In support of his aforesaid contention, petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jyoti's case supra, in order to contend that taking Kannada as one of the subjects in II PUC would satisfy the criteria of having taken
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR Kannada in 10th standard also. However, the said contention cannot be accepted in the light of the subsequent judgment in Anita's case supra, in which the Apex Court considered and clarified its earlier judgment in Jyoti's case and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner as hereunder:
" 10. While examining the advertisement, which has been extracted hereinabove, we are satisfied that the applications were not invited from candidates possessing the qualification depicted in the Appendix to the 1981 Rules, pertaining to the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is also apparent, that none of the private respondents possess the qualification of JBT/ETT, and as such, none of them can be stated to be possessed of qualifications statutorily prescribed and delineated in the Appendix to the 1981 Rules. None of the private respondents was therefore per se eligible for appointment to the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. This was one of the pointed reasons why the State Government did not grant its approval to the selection and appointment of the private respondents. In our considered view, no infirmity can be found in the aforesaid determination at the hands of the State Government.
11. Insofar as the issue in hand is concerned, reference may be made to the decision rendered by this Court in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, wherein this Court held as under : (SCC p. 546, para
10)
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR "10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not BEd. Whether BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible."
12. Reference may also be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), wherein this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 550-51, para 5) "5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion, it has rightly come to the conclusion that BEd qualification, although a well- recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the BEd candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for BEd course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialised training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding BEd degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR for which BEd is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification, the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with BEd degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former."
13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments leave no room for any doubt that it is imperative for the candidates to possess the statutory qualification prescribed for appointment to the posts, to which they are seeking appointment. In view of the position declared by this Court, qualifications of BEd and other qualifications possessed by the private respondents, namely, MA, MSc, MCom, etc. cannot be treated as higher qualifications with reference to the prescribed qualifications (JBT/ETT). We, therefore, find the reasons recorded by the DEO in the impugned order dated 4-4-2005 were fully justified, and in consonance with the legal position declared by this Court, as has been noticed hereinabove.
14. To be fair to the learned counsel for the private respondents, we may also make a reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission. The learned counsel had invited our attention to para 7 thereof, wherein it was observed as under : (SCC p. 598);
"7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far."
It is no doubt true, that this Court held in the aforestated judgment, that if a person had acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. Possession of the higher qualification would therefore, according to the learned counsel, make a candidate eligible for the post, even though, the candidate does not possess the prescribed qualification. The question however is, whether the above position can be applied to the present case?
15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case, permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 598, para 6) "6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR '10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post ."
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications."
14. So also, in Zahoor Ahmed's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:-
" 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita,. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision , decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned.
28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with Matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible."
Under these circumstances, this contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
15. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that it was not necessary for him to take up the mandatory Kannada language test conducted by the KPCL, since he was under the impression that he had sufficiently complied with the prescribed eligibility criteria; having specifically ticked "Yes" based on the PUC marks card, petitioner
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR was estopped from attempting to approbate and reprobate and subsequently contend that he had ticked "Yes" by mistake or inadvertence, which plea is clearly mutually inconsistent and destructive with the pleadings and documents put forth and produced by the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the petitioner who had consciously ticked "Yes" to the query regarding SSLC/CBSE/ICSE-Kannada, despite knowing that his 10th standard certificate did not contain the said subject, did not take any steps to either correct the error or request the respondent
- KPCL to permit him to write the Kannada language test from 2017 till the stage of document verification, thereby indicating that the marking made by the petitioner as "Yes" was neither a trivial error or an inordinate mistake nor a clerical slip but a determinative declaration that allowed the petitioner to bypass a mandatory qualifying test; by opting "Yes", the online system automatically exempted from the Departmental Kannada language test, a benefit he was not legally entitled to and the petitioner being well educated cannot subsequent turn around and blame technology or take shelter under "digital trap" to rectify his own inaccurate information
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR and consequently, even this contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
16. The petitioner places reliance upon the certificate issued in his favour for having passed the KPSC Kannada language test; in this context, as stated supra, clause 8 of the Modified Recruitment Notification specifically mandates and requires a candidate who did not study Kannada as one of the subjects in 10th standard to pass a Kannada language test conducted by the KPCL (and not the KPSC), especially when the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language) Examinations) Rules, 1974, are not incorporated into the KPCL Recruitment Rules or the 2017 Notification. Further, the KPCL which is the employer is the sole authority to prescribe standards for proficiency verification and the petitioner cannot compel the KPCL, which is a Government owned corporation to accept the KPSC certificate when a specific Departmental test was notified and available, despite which, the petitioner did not opt for the same and had consciously ticked "Yes" to the column relating to clause 8 for having studied Kannada in 10th standard and consequently, no reliance can be placed upon the said KPSC Kannada language test
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR or the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted on this score also.
17. It is well settled that in matters relating to holding / conducting recruitment examination by the Government authorities, which have sufficient powers to adopt and follow the eligibility criteria, the rules of the aim and notified terms of recruitment cannot be changed or altered midway or mid-process and it is impermissible in law to interfere in the eligibility criteria for recruitment of various posts; in the instant case, the recruitment is governed strictly by the aforesaid Notification dated 03.08.2017, which forms an integrated recruitment scheme, especially when the Division Bench in W.A.No.1298/2024 directed that re-examination be conducted strictly as per the aforesaid Notification and any deviation to accommodate the petitioner would violate the said rules of the game principle which prohibits changing of eligibility criteria once the process has been reset and notified. Further, the selection process which is delayed for the last 9 years must be conducted strictly according to the stipulated criteria to ensure uniformity and fairness among more than 9500 candidates and granting a remedial test or accepting un-notified certificates
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR (KPSC/PUC) for the petitioner as a sole / single candidate would constitute favouritism and a special dispensation which is impermissible in law.; it is well settled that relaxing conditions in one individual without due publication would violate the rights of other candidates who have complied with the rules or passed the departmental tests and adherence to notified eligibility is a constitutional necessity to prevent arbitrary administrative actions.
18. In Bedanga Talukdar's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:-
" 29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18166 WP No. 4356 of 2026 HC-KAR in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the various contentions and grounds urged by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be accepted and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/SRL