Point of Law : Only those appointments which were made up to the date of the learned Single Judge's decision would be continued and no further appointments on the basis of Rule 3(B) would be considered to have been validly made.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Though the writ petition is listed for ‘orders’, as it was understood that the matter would be taken up for disposal, it is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the counsels.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader would place reliance on the ruling of a Co-ordinate Bench rendered in W.P. No.39315/2018 and other batch of writ petitions whereby, a Co-ordinate Bench after examining the issue of refixation of seniority, was pleased to reject the writ petitions and was further pleased to affirm the orders of the tribunal which in turn, affirms the order of the DG & IG of Police refixing the seniority. The respondents herein are also similarly situated as the petitioners therein and there is no dispute with regard to the same.

4. The brief facts are that, the KPSC invited applications for the posts of Commercial Tax Inspectors and that in the interregnum, the State had introduced Clause (mm) to Rule 2(1) and Rule 3-B of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Herein after referred to as ‘KCS (GR) Rules’). The term ‘Rural Candidate’ came to be defined and further a weightage of 10% marks was awarded to that class of applicants. That the rules were subjected to further amendments by a notification dated 15.03.1996, 27.04.1997 and 06.12.1997.

5. That the said rules came to be questioned in W.P. No.13157/1998 and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the same by order dated 11.11.1998 and the learned Single Judge was further pleased to declare Rule 3-B of the ‘KCS (GR) Rules’ as being unconstitutional. However the appointments, that were made till the date of judgment, were saved under the ‘Doctrine of Prospective Ruling’.

6. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A. No.5807/1998 & by an interim order in the writ appeal, the Division Bench was pleased to stay the order of the learned Single Judge. But ultimately, the writ appeal also came to be rejected by an order dated 26.11.1999 and while so rejecting the writ appeal, the Division Bench was further pleased to grant protection to such of those appointees who came to be appointed during the pendency of the writ appeal. But was pleased to affirm the ruling of the learned Single Judge holding the amended Rule 3-B of the ‘KCS (GR) Rules’ to be unconstitutional.

7. The order of the Division Bench that extended protection to the candidates, who came to be appointed post the order of the learned Single Judge and till the date of disposal by the Division Bench, came to be questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sreedhara Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2002 (9) SCC 441 and other connected matters, on the ground that by its order, the Division Bench had advanced the case of candidates who were less meritorious than the petitioners.

8. By its order dated 11.10.2001, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the SLP and further pleased to quash the extended protection granted by the Division Bench by its order dated 26.11.1999, holding the same as unsustainable and further was pleased to set-aside the appointments made during the pendency of the appeal. In that regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as under:-

“9. Having considered xxx have been nullified. The learned Single Judge however protected the appointments already made till the Rule was struck down. The ambit of that direction cannot be however amplified and extended as has been done by the Division Bench in the case in hand while passing the final judgment. The Division Bench committed an error in not considering the interim order that had been passed while entertaining the appeals. In that interim order, it was unequivocally indicated that any appointments to be made thereafter would be subject to the final decision in the appeals and the State Government would obtain an undertaking from the appointees so that they c