Karnataka High Court
Miss Swati S Kendri vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited on 28 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No.1298 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL No.1018 OF 2024 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.1160 OF 2024 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No.1344 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WA No.1298/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI NAVEEN KUMAR N.,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT No. 227, MNT LAYOUT,
NEAR POLICE STATION,
MADANAYAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU 562162.
2 . SYED BURHAN AHMED.
S/O SYED NISRAHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT 1 AND 2,
WARD No.16, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR SAI BABATEMPLE,
VISHAL NAGAR,
BALLARI 583101.
3 . SRI GAVIYAPPA G. H.,
S/O G. HUCHAPPA,
-2-
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT WARD No.1,
BESIDE MASJID, VITTALAPUR,
BALLARI 583115.
4 . SRI SHIVANANDA HARNANNAVAR,
S/O BHIMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT No.271,
NEAR KANNAD SCHOOL
HUKKERI (RURAL),
JAGANUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI 591305.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M. K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED.,
A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD ,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED,
No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 560012,
REP.BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
4. GIRISH. J.,
S/O SRI JAYARAMLINGAIAH,
-3-
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A No.60, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
KTG COLLEGE ROAD, SRIGANGADHAR,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
BANGALORE-560091.
5. MR. SUGURAYYA SWAMI,
S/O SRI NEPAL SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A No. 11-390-15/A,
SHANTHVEER NAGAR,
GULBARGA 585103.
6. MR. SHASHIDARA JM,
S/O SRI. KEDARASWAMY JM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A No. 0-114B, KHB ROAD,
NEAR ANGANAVADI,
RAMANAGARA BELLARY-583121.
7. NAVEEN KUMAR S,
S/O SRI. SUBBAPPA SR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A ML HALLI,
MADASURLINGADAHALLI,
SHIMOGA 577434.
8. MR. GOVIND RATHOD,
S/O SRI. MUDAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
GADDI THANDA,
DEVADURGA, RAICHUR - 584111.
9. MR. SHARANABASU SONNA,
S/O SHIVAPPA SONNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A 436, MASALI BK PO, TAMBA,
VIJAYAPURA- 586215.
10. MR. SUNIL HOSALLI,
S/O SRI BSAPPA HOSALLI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A No.131,TEACHERS COLONY,
BANDIHALLI ROAD,
-4-
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARI 583212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA 5/2024;
SRI KESHAV M. DATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA 6/2024;
SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA 7/2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/07/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP No.16517/2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
IN WA No.1018/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MAHESH KUMAR,
SON OF HULIGEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.201,
6TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560040.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY OWNED BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.82,
-5-SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR (HR) KARNATAKA POWER
CORPORATION LIMITED,
No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE 560012,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
4. MR. MAHESHA KUMAR P.,
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.13-3-3/47,
GANDHINAGAR, YERAMARUS CAMP,
RAICHUR 584135.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-2;
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 23.09.2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI KESHAV M. DATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA 2/2024;
SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IN IA 1/2025;
SRI M.S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA 2/2025)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE SINGLE
BENCH, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE PETITION IN WP No.
14233/2024.
-6-
IN WA No.1160/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. GIRISH. J.,
SON OF SRI. JAYARAMLINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No. 60,
4TH MAIN, 4TH A CROSS,
KTG COLLEGE ROAD,
SRIGANDHANAGAR,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 091.
2. MR. SUGURAYYA SWAMI,
SON OF SRI. NEPAL SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No. 11-390-15/A,
SHANTHVEER NAGAR,
GULBARGA-585 103.
3. MR. SHASHIDARA J. M.,
SON OF SRI. KEDARASWAMY. J. M.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No. 0-114B, KHB ROAD,
NEAR ANGANAVADI,
RAMANAGARA, BELLARY-583 212.
4. MR. SUNIL HOSALLI,
SON OF SRI. BASAPPA HOSALLI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.131,
TEACHERS COLONY,
BANDIHALLI ROAD,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
BELLARI-583 212.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PARASHURAM A. L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
-7-No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
No. 82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 012,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-2;
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS IN IA No.2/2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10/07/2024 IN WP
No.16517/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT
PETITION.
IN WA No.1344/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MISS SWATI S KENDRI,
C/O DR. SURESH S KENDRI,
AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.150,
HPO AND RMS LAYOUT,
SATHAGAHALLI, PO. KALYANAGIRI,
DIST. MYSURU – 570019.
-8-
2. SRI. KALENDRACHARI K.,
S/O SRISHAILACHARI,
AGED 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.05, 1ST WARD,
GANIGARA STREET,
M.B.IYYANAHALLI,
PO. M. B. AYYANAHALLI,
DIST. BALLARI – 583126.
3. SRI. KHAZAMAINUDDIN SAB,
S/O MADARASAB MAKHANDARA,,
AGED 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ADOOR,
PO. RAJOOR,
TQ. DIST. KOPPAL – 583236.
4. SRI. SHIVKUMAR,
S/O CHANDRAKANTH,
AGED 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No. 17-1-66,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
OLD MAILOOR,
TQ. DIST. BIDAR – 585401.
5. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD G JUMANALMATH,
S/O GURAYYA ,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 11,
4TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR HUBLI,
HUBLI ENG COLLEGE,
DHARWAD 580 031.
6. SRI PAVAN KUMAR N.,
S/O GAJENDRA N.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.114/47
VATAPPA STREET,
NEAR RENUKA YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARY,
BELLARY.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)
-9-
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
No.82, SHAKTI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
No.82, SHAKTI BHAVAN,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560001.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE – 560012,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R2;
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/07/2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.16517/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.16517/2024 FILED BY
PETITIONERS THEREIN.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED
AS UNDER:
– 10 –
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVINDC.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. M.K. Prithveesh for the
appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for learned
advocate Mr. Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent No.1, learned
advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3, learned advocate
Mr. Suraj Naik for learned advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar for the
impleading applicants in I.A.No.5 of 2024, learned advocate Mr.
Keshav M. Datar for impleading applicants in I.A.No.6 of 2024 and
learned Senior Advocate Mr. D.R. Ravishankar for learned
advocate Smt. R. Siri for impleading applicants in I.A.No.7 of 2024
in Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024;
Learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Sastry for the appellant,
learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for learned advocate
Mr. Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned
advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3, learned advocate
Mr. Keshav M. Datar for the impleading applicant in I.A.No.2 of
2024, learned Senior Advocate Mr. D.R. Ravishankar for learned
advocate Smt. R. Siri for impleading applicants in I.A.No.1 of 2025
– 11 –
and learned advocate Mr. M.S. Rajendra for impleading applicants
in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.1018 of 2024;
Learned advocate Mr. Vinayaka B. Vishnu Batta for the
appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for learned
advocate Mr. Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent No.1, learned
advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal
No.1344 of 2024; and
Learned advocate Mr. A.L. Parashuram for the appellants,
learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for learned advocate
Mr. Ajay J. Nandalike for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned
advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3 and learned
advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar for the impleading applicants in
I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Writ Appeal No.1160 of 2024.
2. Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024 under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, 1961 has been preferred against the order of learned
Single Judge dated 10.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.16517 of 2024
along with I.A. No.2 of 2024 seeking leave of the Court to
prosecute the appeal.
Writ Appeal No.1018 of 2024 has been preferred challenging
the order dated 12.06.2024 in Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024. Writ
Appeal Nos.1160 of 2024 and 1344 of 2024 have been preferred
– 12 –
challenging the order dated 10.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.16517
of 2024. All the appeals give rise to common question.
3. Brief facts:
Respondent No.1 – Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
(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 appellants submitted applications for
the posts of Junior/Assistant Engineer and appeared for the written
examination conducted by Respondent No.1 on 21.01.2018.
Respondent No.1, by order dated 23.06.2018, cancelled the written
examination held on 21.01.2018. Subsequently, Notification dated
16.07.2018 was issued by Respondent No.1 for the conduct of
fresh written examination through the Karnataka Examination
Authority (KEA). The cancellation of the earlier examination was
challenged by certain candidates in Writ Petition Nos.34850-34874
of 2018. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated
01.02.2019, upholding the cancellation. Writ Appeal Nos.802-821
of 2019, filed challenging the said order, were also dismissed by
order dated 14.10.2019. The re-examination was conducted by
Respondent No.3 – KEA on 18.02.2024, in which the appellants
– 13 –
participated. Respondent No.3 issued a Notification dated
08.05.2024 informing candidates that one-third (1/3rd) mark would
be deducted for every wrong answer. Certain candidates filed Writ
Petition No.14233 of 2024 challenging the Provisional Score List
dated 08.05.2024. The said writ petition was dismissed, holding
that the examination conducted on 21.01.2018 had also been
subject to negative marking, and that the re-examination held on
18.02.2024 was to be conducted on similar terms, including the
application of negative marking. On the same day, Respondent
No.3 issued the Final Score List. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 filed Writ
Petition No.16517 of 2024 challenging the Final Score List dated
12.06.2024. The said writ petition was also dismissed in light of the
order passed in Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024.
4. Learned advocates for the parties have addressed common
arguments by referring to the same documents. Hence, these
appeals were heard together and are disposed of by common
judgment.
Submissions:
5. Learned advocate Mr. M.K. Prithveesh appearing for the
appellants in Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024 made the following
submissions.
– 14 –
5.1 The applicability of negative marking was intimated to the
candidates only after the written examination, at the time of
publication of the Provisional Score List on 08.05.2024. The
learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the candidates,
having participated in the written examination, cannot subsequently
challenge the introduction of negative marking. The cause of
action, if any, arose only after the examination was conducted, and
any alleged prejudice to the interest of the writ petitioners occurred
thereafter.
5.2 The respondent-authorities had prescribed the condition of
negative marking in the examination conducted on 21.01.2018. The
said condition was incorporated in the admission ticket as well as in
the question booklet issued to the candidates. However, the said
examination was subsequently cancelled. Upon conduct of the re-
examination, fresh admission tickets were issued containing certain
conditions. Similarly, the question booklets issued for the re-
examination included specific instructions for candidates. In the
examination conducted on 18.02.2024, neither the admission ticket
nor the question booklet contained any condition prescribing
negative marking. There was not even a reference to the
– 15 –
applicability of negative marking, unlike in the earlier examination
conducted on 21.01.2018.
5.3 The rules governing recruitment to the notified posts do not
mandate the application of negative marking. There are no other
statutory provisions or regulations prescribing such a condition.
Even the recruitment Notification pursuant to which the
examination was conducted does not contain any clause relating to
negative marking. In the absence of any express stipulation to that
effect in the examination conducted on 18.02.2024, it is
impermissible to imply the applicability of negative marking merely
on the basis of its inclusion in the earlier examination.
5.4 The condition of negative marking, being substantive in
nature and having a bearing on the entire examination process as
well as the manner in which a candidate conducts himself during
the examination, ought to be expressly stipulated. In the present
case, the negative marking was introduced only after the
conclusion of the examination and at the stage of preparation of the
Provisional Score List. Such a condition, which materially affects
the evaluation process, cannot be introduced retrospectively. The
conditions governing the examination cannot be altered after the
examination has been conducted.
– 16 –
5.5 There is no authority vested in the respondent authorities to
alter or modify the conditions of the examination after its
completion.
5.6 Learned advocate in support of his submissions, relied on
the following judgments.
(i) Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and
others, [(2011) 12 SCC 85];
(ii) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & others vs. State of
Gujarat and others, [2023 SCC Online SC 167],
(iii) Dr. Raghavendra H.K. vs. State of Karnataka and
others, [2021 SCC Online Kar. 264]; and
(iv) S. Nelson Prabhakar vs. CBSE and another [2019
SCC Online Mad. 26355].
6. Learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Sastry appearing for the
appellants in Writ Appeal No.1018 of 2024 made the following
submissions,
6.1 The recruitment notification did not impose any condition of
negative marking. The said condition was found only in the
question booklet of the first examination. When fresh admission
tickets and question booklets were issued for the second/re-
– 17 –
examination, containing specific conditions, the absence of any
express stipulation regarding negative marking indicates that such
a condition was not intended to apply. In the absence of an express
provision, the condition of negative marking cannot be impliedly
imported from the first examination. The retrospective application of
negative marking, after the completion of the examination, is
impermissible.
6.2 The recruitment process commences with the issuance of a
notification inviting applications. Thereafter, any change to the
prescribed conditions is impermissible. The mere intimation by
KPCL to KEA to conduct the examination with negative marking
cannot suffice unless the same is formally notified to the
candidates. Since negative marking affects the very pattern of the
competitive examination, it must be disclosed to the candidates at
the outset, enabling them to appropriately prepare and formulate
their approach to answering the examination.
6.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate relied on the
following judgments,
(i) Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and
others, [(2011) 12 SCC 85];
– 18 –
(ii) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & others vs. State of
Gujarat and others, [2023 SCC Online SC 167],
(iii) Tej Prakash vs. Rajasthan High Court and others,
[(2025) 2 SCC 1]; and
(iv) Geetha Chavan vs. KPCL and others in
W.P.No.202497/2024, dated 12.12.2024.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S Rajagopal for respondent
No.1 submits as under,
7.1 The examining authority is empowered to prescribe such
rules as it deems fit for recruitment examinations. The imposition of
negative marking was uniformly applied to all candidates appearing
for the examination, and therefore, there is no element of
arbitrariness in its application.
7.2 Negative marking was imposed to deter guesswork and to
ensure the selection of truly deserving candidates. It cannot be said
that any prejudice has been caused by the application of negative
marking.
7.3 The examination conducted in 2018, which included negative
marking, was subsequently cancelled to facilitate a re-examination.
The re-examination held on 18.02.2024 was conducted on the
– 19 –
same terms and conditions as the original examination. The first
examination expressly stipulated the application of negative
marking, and the re-examination was held accordingly without any
modification to these terms. There is no requirement to expressly
reiterate the negative marking condition in the admission ticket, as
it was already known to all candidates. Conversely, in the absence
of an express condition, a candidate cannot presume that negative
marking is not applicable.
7.4 Since the appellants participated in the first examination with
full knowledge of the negative marking condition, they are expected
to reasonably assume that the re-examination would also be
conducted with the same condition. Furthermore, KEA was formally
instructed by way of letter dated 31.01.2024 to conduct the
examination with negative marking. Therefore, the decision to
apply negative marking was not taken after the examination was
conducted. It is also pertinent to note that previous recruitment
examinations held in 2014-15 and 2017-18 were conducted
applying negative marking.
7.5 The candidates/appellants are estopped from raising
objections to the imposition of negative marking after having
participated in the examination. There was no reasonable basis for
– 20 –
the candidates to believe that negative marking would not be
applicable. KPCL has consistently communicated to KEA the
requirement of applying negative marking. The mere absence of
such a condition in the instructions issued to the candidates cannot
be a ground to challenge the validity of negative marking.
7.6 KPCL provided a helpline to assist candidates in addressing
their queries. Furthermore, KPCL informed the candidates who
contacted them about the applicability of negative marking. The
invigilators supervising the examination were also instructed to
inform the candidates about negative marking whenever such
queries were raised during the examination.
7.7 Learned advocate in support of his submissions, relied on
the following judgments;
(i) Srinivas K Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of
Medical Sciences and others [(2022) 1 SCC 49],
(ii) Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High
Court and others, [(2025) 2 SCC 1],
(iii) Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC
743].
– 21 –
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for impleading applicants in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in Writ Appeal
No.1298 of 2024 submitted as under,
8.1 The examination conducted on 18.02.2024 was held on the
same terms and conditions as those applicable to the examination
conducted on 21.01.2018. KPCL provided timely clarification to
KEA regarding the application of negative marking.
8.2 The applicants are selected candidates as per the
Provisional and Final Selection Lists. The appellants, numbering
only fifteen, cannot legitimately challenge the negative marking
scheme when approximately 18,000 candidates appeared for the
examination.
8.3 The examination conducted on 18.02.2024 was a re-
examination, essentially a re-doing of the same exercise.
Accordingly, all conditions applicable to the first examination
equally apply to the re-examination. The notification pursuant to
which the examination on 18.02.2024 was conducted explicitly
specified that it was a re-examination. The examination conducted
by KEA was carried out in accordance with the prescribed rules,
regulations, and methodology of valuation.
– 22 –
8.4 Since the re-examination was conducted on the conditions
imposed in the first examination, there were no instructions in the
question booklet or admission ticket indicating that ‘there will be no
negative marking.’ Considering that all recruitment examinations
conducted by KPCL have incorporated negative marking, it is to be
presumed that the re-examination was also subject to negative
marking.
8.5 Learned Senior Advocate in support of his submission relied
on the following judgment.
(i) Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High court and
others, [(2013) 4 SCC 540; and
(ii) Sivanandan C.T. vs. High Court of Kerala and
others, [(2024) 3 SCC 799.
9. Learned advocate appearing for the proposed Respondent
Nos.4 to 9 in Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024 submits that the
examination conducted on 18.02.2024 was a re-examination held
under all the conditions as notified for the examination on
21.01.2018. Therefore, negative marking is applicable to the re-
examination. The impleading applicants participated in the
examination with the understanding that it would be conducted with
– 23 –
negative marking. There is no reason for the appellants to believe
that negative marking would not apply.
9.1. The same set of candidates who appeared for the first
examination also appeared for the re-examination and, as a result,
were aware of the negative marking. Negative marking is an
established practice of KPCL in conducting their recruitment
examinations. KPCL has not made any changes to this practice.
9.2. It is submitted that even if the valuation were made without
applying negative marking, the appellants would still not be eligible
for selection. Their ineligibility, rather than the negative marking, is
the true basis for these frivolous writ petitions. It is further
submitted that a massive exercise has been undertaken by KPCL,
KEA, and the candidates since the recruitment process
commenced in 2018. Due to multiple factors, there has been
uncertainty in concluding the selection process. The present
appeals appear to be attempts to perpetuate this uncertainty.
Moreover, the determination of conditions to be imposed as
qualifications or eligibility is the prerogative of the employer.
Negative marking has been imposed under such authority, and the
appellants, having participated in the examination, cannot
challenge these conditions. The established practice of applying
– 24 –
negative marking in KPCL’s recruitment examinations gives rise to
a legitimate expectation; therefore, the appellants’ failure to
anticipate negative marking cannot be construed as causing
prejudice to their rights.
10. Learned advocate, in support of his submissions, relies on
the following judgments ,
(i) Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court in
Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013;
(ii) Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of
Kerala and others, [(2024) 3 SCC 799];
(iii) The Assam Public Service Commission vs. Pranjal
Kumar Sarma [(2020) 20 SCC 680];
(iv) Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., [(2018) 2 SCC
357]; and
(v) Sate of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and
others, [2022 SCC Online SC 1706].
11. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for
the parties and perusal of record, the points that arise for
consideration in these appeals are,
– 25 –
(i) Whether the conditions imposed in the examination
conducted on 21.01.2018 are applicable to the re-
examination held on 18.02.2024?
(ii) Whether the conditions imposed in the examination
conducted on 21.01.2018 can be impliedly applied to
the re-examination held on 18.02.2024?
(iii) When there is no express or implied reference to the
conditions of the examination conducted on
21.01.2018 in the notification, question booklet, or
admission ticket for the re-examination, can such
conditions be applied to the examination held on
18.02.2024?
(iv) Can the results of the examination held on 18.02.2024,
which imposed negative marking without any prior
stipulation of such a condition in the rules, regulations
governing recruitment, recruitment notification,
admission ticket or question booklet, amount to a
change in the ‘rules of the game’?
– 26 –
Analysis:
Re. Point No.1.
12. Respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 03.08.2017
inviting applications for recruitment to various posts. The
examination was conducted on 21.01.2018. Subsequently, the said
examination was cancelled by a corrigendum dated 23.06.2018,
announcing a re-examination. The respondent authorities issued
fresh admission tickets, and the examination was again conducted
on 21.01.2018. The admission ticket and question booklet for the
examination on 21.01.2018 contained prescribed conditions and
instructions. These documents form part of the record. The
admission ticket explicitly mentions the instructions on negative
marking, as follows:
” There is a negative mark of 1/3rd for every wrong
answer. i.e. 1/3rd mark will be deducted for each
wrong answer.”
Similarly, the instruction regarding negative marking in the
question booklet is as follows:
” Correct answer carry one mark each – wrong answers
carry negative 1/3rd each and unanswered questions
carry no marks.”
– 27 –
13. KEA issued admission tickets for the re-examination
conducted on 18.02.2024. The question booklet for the re-
examination is also on record. Both the admission ticket and
question booklet contain instructions for the candidates. Upon
careful perusal of these instructions, it is evident that no condition
relating to negative marking has been imposed. Furthermore, there
is neither any express nor implied indication that the conditions
applicable to the examination held on 21.01.2018 apply to the re-
examination.
14. The notification dated 03.08.2017 does not prescribe
negative marking. The rules governing recruitment and imposing
negative marking have not been placed before the Court. Except
for the admission ticket and question booklet of the 2018
examination, no other material or document has been produced to
justify the imposition of negative marking. On the contrary, the
appellants have categorically stated that neither the rules,
regulations, nor the recruitment notification prescribe or mandate
negative marking, except for the instructions contained in the
admission ticket and question booklet of 2018 examination. When
queried, the learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.1
candidly admitted that the rules, regulations, and notification do not
– 28 –
prescribe negative marking; rather, it was imposed solely through
the instructions to candidates in the admission ticket and question
booklet. Given that the question booklet and admission ticket for
the 2018 examination ceased to have effect upon completion of
that examination, and fresh admission tickets and question
booklets were issued for the 2024 examination, the contention of
the respondent authorities that the 2024 examination was merely a
re-examination to which all conditions applicable to the 2018
examination apply with equal force is unacceptable.
15. Negative marking is a substantive condition governing the
pattern of the examination, having significant repercussions on the
outcome. Moreover, it fundamentally influences the manner and
strategy adopted by the candidate in answering the examination. In
this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in The Assam Public Service Commission vs.
Pranjal Kumar Sarma and others, [(2020) 20 SCC 680], wherein
it was held as follows,
13. To deal with the rival submission, the relevant clauses
in the process of selection envisaged under the 2019
Procedure, will bear consideration. The concept of
negative marking is introduced for the first time under
Clause 4(B)(ii) which provides that for each wrong answer,
@ 0.25 marks are deducted against each question.
Besides the Clause 4(B)(vi) stipulates that marks for the
interview shall not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks.
The screening test in which the Respondents and other
– 29 –
candidates appeared on 30.06.2019 under the 2010 Rules
as earlier noted, had no negative marking and, therefore,
the candidates could take the risk of guessing the correct
answer in the multiple choice test, without the fear of being
penalised for incorrect answer.
14. In the above backdrop, if the next segment of
selection is to be conducted under the 2019 Procedure, the
performance of the candidate in the aforenoted screening
test to the extent of 87.8 per cent of the total marks, will
determine the final selection of the candidate. The
question, therefore, is whether this would be fair on the
candidates when the performance of few would be
determined more by lucky guess and the real merit may
have no role in the aggregate score. The other relevant
question is whether the method of selection should be
permitted to be changed midway, by adopting the 2019
Procedure incorporated with effect from 01.04.2019 for the
vacancies, which were advertised on 21.12.2018.
15. The law with regard to applicability of the Rules
which are brought anew during the selection process have
been crystallized by this Court. It has been held that the
norms existing on the date when the process of selection
begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the
norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the
new Rules are to be given retrospective effect. (See State
of Bihar and Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar MANU/SC/0630/2010
: (2010) 13 SCC 467). Similarly in N .T. Devin Katti and
Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors.
MANU/SC/0240/1990 : (1990) 3 SCC157, this Court held
that a candidate has a limited right of being considered for
selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on
the date of advertisement and he cannot be deprived of
that limited right by amendment of the Rules during the
pendency of the selection, unless the Rules are to be
applied retrospectively.
The Allahabad High Court in Hemant Krishna Maurya and others
vs. State of U.P. and others, [(2010) SCC OnLine ALL 1042),
while considering the impact of negative marking held as,
30. The number of questions that a candidate may attempt
to answer in a multiple choice question paper depends
– 30 –
largely on whether there will negative marking or not. If
there is negative marking, a candidate will naturally
attempt to answer only those questions of which he is sure
of the answer and may not attempt to answer the
remaining questions if he is not sure of the answer to those
questions. On the other hand, if there is no negative
marking, a candidate will take a chance and attempt to
answer all the questions even if he is not sure of the
answers. For instance if a candidate, as in the present
case, is required to answer 200 multiple choice questions
and he is sure about the answers to 100 questions, then if
there is negative marking, he will not attempt to answer the
remaining 100 questions since answering them may result
in decrease of the number of marks that he will secure for
answering the 100 questions, but if there is no negative
marking, he will like to take a chance and answer the
remaining 100 questions also since there will be a
possibility of getting some more marks without any risk.
The negative marking, therefore, has a direct effect on the
number of questions a candidate may answer in the
multiple choice question paper and so it is necessary for
the authority to make it known to the candidates before the
examination whether there will be negative marking or not
and if a decision for negative marking has been taken prior
to the holding of the examination, such decision cannot be
altered after the examination is held. Thus, if the system of
negative marking is dispensed with after the holding of
Examination, the examination will stand vitiated and cannot
be considered as valid for determination of the inter-se
“Academic Merit” of the candidates. For this reason alone,
the Circular dated 6th April, 2010 deserves to be set aside.
16. The importance of expressly communicating the negative
marking condition to candidates attending the examination, in light
of the above judgments, leads to the inescapable conclusion that
such a condition is substantive and must be explicitly stated. As
noted earlier, except in the instructions contained in the admission
ticket and question booklet of the 2018 examination, there is no
mention of the applicability of negative marking in the 2024
– 31 –
examination. The contention advanced by Respondent No.1 KPCL
that the condition applies by implication is untenable for multiple
reasons. Firstly, negative marking was imposed only through the
admission ticket and question booklet of the 2018 examination; it is
neither prescribed in the rules, regulations, nor in the recruitment
notification. Moreover, the admission ticket and question booklet
issued for the 2018 examination ceased to have effect upon
completion of that examination.
16.1 Secondly, an altogether new admission ticket, issued by a
different examining authority, was provided for the 2024
examination along with new instructions. The instructions contained
in the admission ticket and question booklet for the 2024
examination are conspicuously silent on the applicability of
negative marking. Moreover, there is no reference, either express
or implied, directing candidates to apply the conditions of the 2018
examination. In the absence of any such express or implied
incorporation of the 2018 conditions, the contention of Respondent
No.1 that the re-examination in 2024 was governed by the
conditions of the 2018 examination merits no consideration and
lacks rational basis. The suggestion advanced by Respondent No.1
– 32 –
effectively places the onus on the candidates to presume the
applicability of negative marking.
16.2 Another notable aspect emerging from the pleadings of
Respondent No.1 is that a helpline was provided to candidates to
clarify their doubts, and it is stated that candidates who called were
informed about negative marking. It is also contended that
invigilators in the examination hall were instructed to inform
candidates about negative marking upon query. Such contentions
raise serious questions regarding the manner in which the
examination was conducted, particularly when approximately
18,000 candidates participated for around 2,000 vacancies.
16.3 Further, the stand that KEA conducted the re-examination
and that the omission to mention negative marking was KEA’s
responsibility, with subsequent justification for applying negative
marking, is difficult to accept. The blame-shifting between KEA and
KPCL cannot adversely affect the careers of the candidates. The
condition of negative marking ought to be prescribed in the rules,
regulations, or recruitment notification. If imposed as part of
instructions, each admission ticket and question booklet issued by
the recruiting or examining authority must expressly and
unequivocally disclose the negative marking condition.
– 33 –
17. Upon overall consideration of the foregoing aspects, the only
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the conditions
imposed in the examination held on 21.01.2018 are not applicable
to the re-examination conducted on 18.02.2024.
Re. Point Nos.2 and 3.
18. The examination must be conducted in accordance with the
law governing recruitment to public services. Such conditions,
whether governing eligibility or the selection process, are often
regarded as the ‘rules of the game.’ It is a settled legal position in
service jurisprudence that these rules of the game must not be
altered midway or after the game has been played. In the present
case, there are no rules or regulations specifically governing
negative marking. The recruitment notification dated 03.08.2017
does not stipulate any condition regarding negative marking.
Negative marking was introduced solely through instructions
contained in the admission ticket and question booklet of the 2018
examination. Such instructions effectively constitute the rules of the
game.
18.1 The examination conducted pursuant to the 2018 admission
ticket and question booklet was subsequently cancelled to allow for
– 34 –
a re-examination. Respondent No.1 issued a notification to conduct
the re-examination on 18.02.2024 through the Karnataka
Examinations Authority (KEA) as per the original 03.08.2017
notification. As the examining authority, KEA issued a fresh
admission ticket with instructions, and similarly, the question
booklet for the re-examination contained instructions directed to the
candidates. Notably, neither the admission ticket nor the question
booklet for the 2024 re-examination prescribed any condition
relating to negative marking.
18.2 In the absence of any specific conditions in the rules,
regulations, or recruitment notification, the instructions issued with
the admission ticket and question booklet constitute the operative
rules of the game. The re-examination was conducted on
18.02.2024 accordingly. It was only on 08.05.2024 that KEA issued
a publication announcing that the Provisional Score List had been
prepared by applying negative marking, in accordance with the
practice followed by KPCL in previous examinations. This
notification, coupled with the provisional score list, effectively
introduced the negative marking condition. Thus, the rules of the
game were altered not during the course of the examination, but
after its completion.
– 35 –
19. The necessity of notifying candidates of substantive
conditions and the consequential effect on the examination
outcome has been addressed in the preceding paragraphs, with
reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In light of
the finding that negative marking constitutes a substantive
condition in the recruitment process, it must necessarily be
communicated to candidates prior to the commencement of the
examination. In the present case, the examination was completed
on 18.02.2024, and the intended application of negative marking
was disclosed to candidates for the first time only through a press
release dated 08.05.2024. The only conclusion that can be drawn
is that the rule of negative marking was imposed after the
examination had concluded, which is impermissible. Apart from
references to the instructions contained in the admission ticket and
question booklet of the 2018 examination, no other document has
been placed before this Court expressly providing for negative
marking. Accordingly, it is held that the conditions applicable to the
2018 examination cannot be impliedly applied to the 2024 re-
examination.
Re. Point No.4.
20. As held in the Assam Public Service Commission (supra),
the norms existing on the date when process of selection begins,
– 36 –
will control the selection and alteration to the norms would not
affect the ongoing process unless the new rules are to be given
retrospective effect aptly apply to the facts in the present case.
21. A candidate appearing for an examination is entitled to
formulate a strategy for answering the questions. The question
booklet reveals that the examination was conducted in a multiple-
choice question format. In such a scenario, a candidate may
choose to answer only when confident or resort to guesswork. In
the absence of negative marking, the candidate secures marks
solely for correct answers. However, where negative marking is
applied, the candidate not only loses marks for wrong answers but
also risks reduction of marks against right answer. Knowledge of
the existence of negative marking is therefore critical, as it
influences the candidate’s approach prompting caution and
discouraging guesswork, thereby potentially preserving marks for
accurately answered questions.
22. The contention urged by Respondent No.1 that negative
marking was introduced to eliminate candidates relying on
speculative or guess answers, thereby selecting the best among
the available meritorious candidates, is not disputed. It is well
settled that an employer has the discretion to impose conditions of
– 37 –
recruitment. However, what is absent in the present case is the
imposition of the negative marking condition prior to the
commencement of the examination. The publication of the Final
Score List dated 12.06.2024 by KEA also establishes that KPCL
instructed KEA to apply negative marking only while preparing the
Final Score List, which was well after the examination date of
18.02.2024. As observed by the Allahabad High Court (supra),
negative marking directly affects the number of questions a
candidate may attempt in a multiple-choice question paper and,
therefore, it is imperative that the authority make the existence of
such a condition known to the candidates before the examination.
The learned advocate for Respondent No.1 was unable to point to
any statutory or regulatory provision prescribing negative marking,
other than the instructions contained in the admission ticket and
question booklet of the 2018 examination. Furthermore, the
Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) announced the
applicability of negative marking only by way of a press release
dated 08.05.2024 that is, after the examination was concluded and
while preparing the Score List. No enabling statutory provision has
been demonstrated that permits alteration of the evaluation criteria
by imposing negative marking after the examination has been
completed.
– 38 –
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak supra
has held that recruitment process commences from the issuance of
calling for applications and ends with filling of vacancies. Eligibility
criteria notified at the commencement of the recruitment process
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process,
unless the extant rules so permit. As held in Tamilnadu
Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society
vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association
and others, [(2009) 14 SCC 517, reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and others vs.
State of Gujarat and others, [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137], it is not
permissible to change qualifying norms after the holding of the
examination and at the time when results of the examination was to
be announced and thereby, changing the said criteria at the verge
of and towards the end of the game and the same is arbitrary and
unjustified. In recruitment process, changing rules of the game
during selection process or when it is over are not permissible. In
Bedanga Talukdar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with
the stipulated selection procedure. There cannot be any relaxation
in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, unless such
– 39 –
power is reserved. Even if the power of relaxation is provided in
the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement and has to
be given due publicity to ensure that the candidates are given due
opportunity. In the present case, the negative marking condition is
neither made known to the candidates expressly nor implied,
except drawing a presumption to the conditions in the admission
ticket and question booklet of 2018 examination.
24. The reliance on Tej Prakash Pathak by learned Senior
Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 to contend that change of
conditions would not affect the selection process is of no
assistance. It is categorically held in the referred judgment that
the conditions imposed in the beginning of recruitment process
would continue till filling up of vacancies, change of conditions is
subject to such empowerment under the rules. Though respondent
No.1 is free to impose recruitment conditions in the present case,
the condition of negative marking after examination is in the
absence of any statutory power, the introduction of negative
marking is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
25. Learned Advocate for the impleading applicants, relying on
the decision in Tej Prakash Pathak, vehemently contended that
previous examinations conducted by KPCL incorporated negative
– 40 –
marking and, therefore, it was a legitimate expectation of every
candidate that the recruitment process would continue to embed
the condition of negative marking. It was further contended that, in
the absence of specific rules on the subject, administrative
instructions may be issued to supplement and govern the field. This
contention is recorded only to be rejected.
26. It is difficult to accept the proposition so canvassed. When a
recruiting authority issues a notification inviting applications subject
to specific conditions therein, it cannot be incumbent upon the
candidate to undertake independent research to ascertain the
manner in which prior examinations were conducted. As held in the
cited judgment, the recruitment process is to be governed by the
conditions notified at its commencement and concludes upon filling
the vacancies. In the present case, there is categorical admission
on behalf of Respondent No.1 that no rules exist governing
negative marking, nor have any administrative instructions been
placed on record. The instructions issued to candidates for the
2024 examination are notably silent on the question of negative
marking.
– 41 –
Further, Respondent No.1 has failed to demonstrate why the
negative marking condition, which was prescribed in the 2018
examination, was not expressly or impliedly incorporated in the
2024 examination. In the absence of any statutory or regulatory
provision or any condition in the recruitment notification, it is wholly
unreasonable and impermissible to apply negative marking to the
2024 examination by mere inference from the 2018 examination
conditions.
27. It is contended by the private respondents that around
18,000 candidates appeared for the 2024 examination, and the
results were announced with negative marking; only 12 candidates
have approached this Court. Hence, it is argued that public interest
prevails over individual rights, and the 2024 examination should not
be cancelled. This submission is, however, superfluous.
28. If an examination is required to be conducted, it must be held
in accordance with the prescribed rules, regulations, terms, and
conditions. An examination conducted otherwise is unsustainable.
The number of candidates who have brought the cause before the
Court is immaterial; what matters is the cause itself. Once it is
established that the examination was not conducted in compliance
with the required rules and regulations, the validity of such
– 42 –
examination can be examined, regardless of the number of
candidates who participated or the consequences of declaring such
examination invalid.
29. The consequences of invalidating the examination and
directing a re-examination, and any inconvenience caused to
individuals or the administration, are irrelevant. The sole concern of
this Court is to remedy the injustice.
30. The judgment in Karunesh Kumar (supra) is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. However, it is pertinent to note that
the principle underlying the prohibition against altering the “rules of
the game” once the game has commenced is reiterated therein.
31. Learned Single Judge, upon comparison of the admission
tickets and question booklets of the 2018 and 2024 examinations,
observed that the 1/3rd negative marking prescribed in 2018 was
absent in 2024. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge proceeded
to hold that the 2024 examination was merely a re-examination of
the 2018 examination. Since the 2018 examination explicitly
notified candidates of negative marking in the admission ticket and
question booklet, it was inferred that the re-examination was also
subject to the same negative marking condition. Further, it was
held that non-application of negative marking would amount to
– 43 –
changing the rules of the re-examination. The learned Single Judge
also held that candidates who participated unsuccessfully in the re-
examination were not entitled to challenge the applicability of
negative marking.
32. The aforesaid findings run contrary to the settled legal
principle that the rules of the game cannot be altered after the
game has commenced or concluded. The learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that the admission ticket and question booklet
of the 2018 examination expressly provided for negative marking,
whereas the corresponding documents for the 2024 examination,
although specifying certain instructions, were silent on the condition
of negative marking. Moreover, there was no reference, either
express or implied, to the applicability of the 2018 conditions to the
2024 examination.
33. An important aspect overlooked by the learned Single Judge
is that the conditions contained in the 2018 admission tickets and
question booklets ceased to have operative effect once that
examination concluded. Once the admission ticket and question
booklet for the re-examination were issued with new conditions,
and in the absence of any express enabling provision, the
– 44 –
applicability of negative marking cannot be inferred from the
conditions of the 2018 examination or from the practice of KPCL.
34. As observed earlier, negative marking is a substantive
condition which substantially affects the candidate’s approach to
answering the examination and has significant repercussions on
the selection process. Such a condition ought to be expressly
stipulated either in the rules, regulations, or administrative
instructions. In the absence of any such express provision, it is
untenable to presume the existence of such a condition. The
learned Single Judge committed an error in not appreciating these
crucial aspects.
35. The order of the learned Single Judge suffers from a
fundamental error in its finding regarding the entitlement of
candidates to approach the Court after the examination. The
examination was conducted on 18.02.2024. However, it was only
on 08.05.2024 that the respondent issued a press release along
with the Provisional Score List, and subsequently on 12.06.2024,
issued another press release along with the Final Score List,
wherein negative marking was notified for the first time. By that
time, the examination had already been completed. The condition
– 45 –
of negative marking ought to have been notified prior to the
conduct of the examination.
36. The cause of action to challenge the application of negative
marking necessarily arose only after the candidates had
participated in the examination and the scores were declared with
negative marking applied. The candidates could not have been
reasonably expected to presume the applicability of negative
marking at a date subsequent to the completion of the examination.
The imposition of negative marking after the examination is a
subsequent development, which causes prejudice to the
candidates’ rights. Consequently, the candidates were entitled to
seek redressal of their grievance through appropriate proceedings.
Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the candidates, irrespective of
whether they were successful or unsuccessful in the examination,
were fully justified.
37. The learned advocates for the appellants have submitted that
Respondent No.3 be directed to re-compute the Score List of the
examination conducted on 18.02.2024 without deducting marks for
negative marking. This submission cannot be accepted. There is
no challenge to the imposition of negative marking per se. The
examination held on 21.01.2018, in which the appellants
– 46 –
participated, was conducted with negative marking. The appellants
were required to reappear in the 2024 examination following the
cancellation of the 2018 examination. The Court has not examined
the correctness or necessity of imposing negative marking, and any
such exercise would be purely academic. The Court is, however,
inclined to issue a direction for conducting the re-examination with
negative marking for the additional reason that Respondent No.1
has consistently pleaded that it had applied negative marking in all
its previous recruitment examinations by expressly providing such
a condition. In light of this settled practice as pleaded, the Court
finds no justification to direct Respondent No.1 to prepare the
Score List without applying negative marking.
38. The Court makes it clear that its interference with the
application of negative marking in the 2024 examination is solely
on the ground that such condition was not notified to the
candidates prior to the examination, but was imposed only after the
examination had concluded. The Court’s interference is grounded
in the principle that the imposition of an additional condition of
negative marking after the examination amounts to a change in the
“rules of the game,” which has been consistently held by the
– 47 –
Hon’ble Supreme Court to be impermissible. The court has not
examined the validity of imposing negative marking.
39. In the light of the finding on the formulated points and the
discussion made herein-above, the following order,
Order
(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.
(iii) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to 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.
(iv) The re-examination shall be conducted subject to the
condition of negative marking, and such condition shall
– 48 –
be expressly communicated to all candidates much
before examination.
In view of disposal of the appeals with resultant directions, all
pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration
and stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV