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.

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 s