1. Employment litigation regarding recruitment and selection of public officials, challenging the validity of a recruitment notification for public service posts based on qualification variance and experience criteria. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 257
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
S G Jamaludheen Etc. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka & Others Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6371-6384 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6385-6409 of 2022 Civil Appeal Nos. 2601-2626 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 32427-32452/2014) Civil Appeal Nos. 6410-6488 OF 2022 Civil Appeal Nos. 2632-2661 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2645-2674/2015) Civil Appeal Nos. 2662-2665 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 34490-34493/2014) Civil Appeal Nos.2666-2929 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.4713-4976/2015) Civil Appeal Nos. 2930-2931 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1478-1479/2015) Civil Appeal Nos. 2932 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30334/2016) Civil Appeal Nos. 2933-2934 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8394-8395/2026 arising out of CC Nos.2570-2571/2017) Civil Appeal Nos. 2935-2973 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3911-3949/2017) Civil Appeal Nos. 2974-3012 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8396-8434/2026 arising out of CC Nos. 2821-2859/2017) Civil Appeal Nos. 3013-3051 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8435-8473/2026 arising out of CC Nos. 2880-2918/2017) Contempt Petition No. of 2026 (Arising out of Diary No. 18428/2024) Contempt Petition No of 2026 (Arising out of Diary No. 18802/2024) Contempt Petition Nos. 228-241 OF 2025 IN Civil Appeal Nos. 6371-6384/2022 Contempt Petition Nos. 685-698 OF 2025 In Civil Appeal Nos. 6371-6384/2022
Decided On : 26-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rekha Palli, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharati, Adv. Mr. Lakshmisha B. S., Adv. Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Ms. Kanimozhi J., Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Ms. Pritama, Adv. Mr. Sufyan Hasan, Adv. Ms. Hema Malik, Adv. Ms. Shaivani, Adv. Dr. Sunita, Adv. Mr. Bipin Vinayak Chandan, Adv. Mr. Vishak Hegde, Adv. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mrs. Jayasheela Y J, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Kumar Parimal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nath, adv. Mr. Vishak Hegde, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Ms. Kanak Wathwal, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kini, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. Mr. H.Subramhanya Jois, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mrs. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.Veeraraghavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Ms. Thanuja.v, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Khalid, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Ms. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, AOR Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Mr. Gopi Kishan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rekha Palli, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharati, Adv. Mr. Lakshmisha B. S., Adv. Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Ms. Kanimozhi J., Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv. Ms. Pritama, Adv. Mr. Sufyan Hasan, Adv. Ms. Hema Malik, Adv. Ms. Shaivani, Adv. Dr. Sunita, Adv. Mr. Bipin Vinayak Chandan, Adv. Mr. Vishak Hegde, Adv. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Adv. Mrs. Jayasheela Y J, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Kumar Parimal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nath, adv. Mr. Vishak Hegde, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Ms. Kanak Wathwal, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kini, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. Mr. H.Subramhanya Jois, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mrs. Divya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.Veeraraghavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Ms. Thanuja.v, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Khalid, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Ms. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, AOR Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Mr. Gopi Kishan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR
The Court permitted the withdrawal of original applications while allowing the State to appoint 16 identified candidates as Motor Vehicle Inspectors, resolving a longstanding dispute and preserving existing appointments.
Headnote:(A) Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 213(4) - Appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors - Karnataka High Court's dismissal of petitions challenging appointments after recruitment notification issued in 2006 upheld - Appeals dismissed as withdrawn following agreement to settle among parties. (Paras 5, 10, 20, 26)
(B) Withdrawal of applications - Original applicants agreed to withdraw original applications before Tribunal in light of identifying 16 eligible candidates for appointment - Agreements do not affect existing appointments or seniority. (Paras 22, 23, 26)
Facts of the case:
The case involves appellants challenging the Karnataka High Court's order that upheld the recruitment notification for Motor Vehicle Inspectors, which was contested by several applicants before the Tribunal, leading to a prolonged legal dispute.
Findings of Court:
The Court allowed 16 identified candidates to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors, without any monetary benefits retroactively, while reaffirming existing appointments.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the recruitment notification and the rights of previously appointed Motor Vehicle Inspectors against new candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court recognized that the agreements made among the parties served to resolve the longstanding legal dispute and reinstated the appointed candidates while allowing selective new appointments without permeating the existing appointments.
Result: Appeals disposed of in terms of resolving the legal conflict amicably.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Parties disputed the legality of the recruitment notification and subsequent appointments, with proposals to resolve the litigation by accommodating specific candidates through withdrawal of judicial challenges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court observed that resolving long-pending litigation through amicable settlement, including conditional appointment of identified candidates and withdrawal of judicial petitions, best serves the interest of justice. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 )
4. Courts may exercise powers under Article 142 to facilitate settlement in long-pending litigation by permitting withdrawal of legal challenges and directing administrative appointments under specific, non-precedential terms. (Para 22 , 23 )
5. Tribunal applications are withdrawn, High Court orders are set aside, and the state is directed to appoint specific candidates with age relaxation, subject to seniority list constraints. (Para 26 )
6. Can the Supreme Court facilitate the settlement of service disputes by permitting the withdrawal of litigation in exchange for administrative appointments?
Yes, exercising plenary powers under Article 142, the Court can approve settlements where parties agree to withdraw challenges to recruitment processes, allowing the state to provide appointments to specific identified individuals under binding, non-precedential conditions. (Para 22 , 23 , 27 )
7. What is the legal effect of an order passed under Article 142 to settle service litigation concerning appointments?
Such orders effectively end the specific legal dispute, set aside previous invalidating orders of lower forums, and mandate administrative actions that are restricted to the facts of the case to ensure no future reliance as a precedent. (Para 23 , 26 , 27 )
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted in S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.2821-2859/2017 and 2880-2918/2017.
2. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (C) CC Nos.2570-2571/2017.
3. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.09.2014 passed the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6842-6880/2010 and connected writ petitions, the appellants are before this Court.
5. A Notification was published on 18.08.2006 by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, “the KPSC”) inviting applications for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. A total of 145 posts were advertised. The qualifications for the post were also spelled out in the said Notification. However, there were several Original Applications filed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) challenging the Notification dated 18.08.2006 after the recruitment process stood completed in terms of the said Notification. By order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the Original Applications filed against the Notification dated 18.08.2006 and the recruitment process pursuant thereto were set aside. There were less than twenty applicants in the original applications viz Application Nos.182-185, 187-195, and 197-202 of 2007. By the said judgment, the Tribunal quashed the Notification dated 18.08.2006, as it was held to be at variance with Condition No.3 of the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government by Notification dated 19.06.1989 issued in exercise of powers under Section 213 (4) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV ACT’, for short). The Tribunal also quashed the appointments made pursuant to the Notification dated 18.08.2006. Condition No.3 of the Central Government Notification dated 19.06.1989 was that candidates must have a working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine.
6. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, writ petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court impugning the judgment of the Tribunal. By way of the impugned order in Writ Petition Nos.6842-6880 of 2010 (S-KAT) and connected matters, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the challenge and sustained the order of the Tribunal.
7. The appellants being the State, the selected and appointed candidates and others are in appeal before us against the aforesaid order of the High Court sustaining the order of the Tribunal. This Court had, vide order dated 04.12.2014, issued notice in the matter and also directed the continuation of the services of the appellants.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka, learned counsel for the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) at length.
9. On conclusion of arguments addressed by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the appellants, learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of their submissions stated that, if the State Government as well as the KPSC are willing to accommodate only sixteen (16) persons, who have been agitating this matter from the initial stage before the Tribunal and thereafter as respondents before the Karnataka High Court and now before this Court, then possibly the respondents may consider withdrawing the original applications that they had filed before the Tribunal and consequently, the matter could be accordingly resolved.
10. It was submitted by learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents that once the original applications filed by the respondents are withdrawn with the permission of this Court, then the impugned orders would pale into insignificance; that the respondents would have no claim whatsoever over the appointments made by
