-1-

NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

WRIT PETITION No.2185 OF 2023

C/W
WRIT PETITION No.2257 OF 2023,
WRIT PETITION No.4572 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION No.1748 OF 2023 (S-RES)

IN W.P.No.2185/2023:
BETWEEN:

1 . MR NATESH MANJAPPA H
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O MANJAPPA S B
R/O NO. 873, 14TH CROSS ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE – 560086.

2 . CHETHAN JAIN H A
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O ANANTHRAJU T V
R/O MADIHALLI HOBALI
HOLABAGERE BELUR, KARNATAKA - 573 216.

… PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH
(BY SMT.ANKITHA PATIL., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
 -2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE – 560001.

2. THE KARNATAKA POWER SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.,

RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560001.

3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY

BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SAMPIGE ROAD,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560012
keauthority-ka@nic.in
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1;

SMT.PADMA UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-
3 TO RE-EVALUATING THE ANSWERS/AWARD TOWARDS THE
WRONG ANSWERS IN THE QUESTION PAPER INSOFAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER THE FINAL KEY
ANSWER DATED 27/12/2022 PUBLISHED ON 03/01/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P LIST BY NOTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST,
IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.
 -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

IN W.P.No.2257/2023

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NAVEENKUMARA H N
S/O NANJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A D NO 13, UDDINAMALLANA HOSURE,
OOGINAHALLI POST,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
KRISHNARAJAPETE,
MANDYA DIST. -571423.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE (VC))

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION

LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.

2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY

REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RAKSHITHA.D.J.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1(VC);
SRI.N.K.SRAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS, DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO AWARD GRACE MARKS
FOR THE QUESTION No.15,91 AND 92 MENTIONED IN
VERSION B2 OF THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED FOR THE
POST OF ASST. ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (KPTCL-2022) BY
DECLARING THAT THE QUESTION NO.15, 91 AND 92 ARE
WRONG, ETC.
 -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

IN W.P.No.4572/2023:

BETWEEN:

1. CHETHAN.K.
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O BHAGAWATI,
BEHIND MIRJI PETROL BUNK,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.PRITHVEESH.M.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 012.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARING
THE IMPUGNED ANSWER KEY DATED:04.02.2023 AND THE
IMPUGNED MERIT LIST DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R
No.2 (ANNEXURE-B) AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND INOPERABLE, ETC.
 -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

IN W.P.No.17481/2023:

BETWEEN:

SRI. GIREESH PAVADASHETTI,

S/O VISHWANATH PAVADASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT HOYSALA HABITAT,
D-201, NAGENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.J.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,

REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA.D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A). DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THE IMPUGNED ANSWER
KEY DATED 04/02/2023 AND THE IMPUGNED MERIT LIST
 -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

DATED 04/02/2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A

AND B AS ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID.

(B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE

OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF THE FINAL ANSWER
KEY DATED 27/12/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND THE
PROVISIONAL SCORE LIST DATED 03/01/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-P AND TO APPOINT HIM AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL) PURSUANT TO THE DETAILED EMPLOYMENT
NOTIFICATION DATED 01/02/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
BEARING No.KAUPRANINI/B16/21723/21-22.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 14.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING

ORDER

1. Writ Petition No.2185 of 2023 is filed for issuance of

a mandamus:

a. Directing respondent No.3 to re-evaluate the

answers / award towards the wrong answers in

the question papers insofar as the petitioners

are concerned, as per the final key answer

dated 27.12.2022 which was published on

03.01.2023, by notifying the supplementary

list;
 -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

b. Directing respondent No.3 to publish the

revised merit list as defective and

consequently, quash the same; and

c. Directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider

their claim for appointment as Assistant

Executive Engineers.

2. Writ Petition No.2257 of 2023 is filed seeking a

mandamus to be issued:

a. Directing the Karnataka Examination Authority

(hereinafter referred to as “the KEA” or “the

Authority”, for brevity) to award grace marks

for question Nos.15, 91 and 92 mentioned in

Version “B2” of the examination conducted for

the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical)

(KPTCL-2022) by declaring that question

Nos.15, 91 and 92 were wrong;

b. Directing respondent No.2 to award marks for

question No.52 mentioned in Version “B2” of

 -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

the said examination by declaring that Options

“A” and “D” of the key answers were correct.

c. Awarding marks for question No.90 mentioned

in Version “B2” of the said examination by

declaring that option “C” is also right answer;

and

d. Directing respondent No.2 to consider the

objections filed by the petitioners on

13.01.2023 and refer the same to the Subject

Expert Committee.

3. Writ Petition No.4572 of 2023 is filed seeking:

a. Quashing of the answer keys published on

04.02.2023 and the consequential merit list

also dated 04.02.2023;

b. Issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider

the case of the petitioner on the basis of the

final answer key dated 27.12.2022 and the

consequential provisional score list dated

 -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

03.01.2023 for the purpose of selection and to

appoint him as an Assistant Engineer

(Electrical).

4. Writ Petition No.17481 of 2023 is filed seeking a

mandamus to be issued:

(a) Declaring the impugned answer key dated

04.02.2023 and the impugned merit list dated

04.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide

Annexures-A and B as illegal, null and void;

(b) directing the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioner on the basis of the final

answer key dated 27.12.2022 vide Annexure-M

and the provisional score list dated 03.01.2023

vide Annexure-P and to appoint him as

Assistant Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the

detailed Employment Notification dated

01.02.2022 vide Annexure-D.

 - 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

5. The brief facts leading up to filing of these writ

petitions are as follows:

(a) On 01.02.2022, the Karnataka Power

Transmission Corporation Limited (“the KPTCL”, for short)

published a Notification inviting applications for filling up

505 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The

Notification stipulated that an Aptitude Test would be

conducted and on the basis of the marks obtained in the

Aptitude Test, recruitments would be made subject to the

orders that had been issued by the State Government

regarding reservation. It was also stated that in order to

be considered for recruitment, candidates had to secure a

minimum of 35 percent of marks in the Aptitude test to be

conducted. The manner in which the Aptitude test would

be conducted and the date and time on which it was to be

conducted were to be announced subsequently.

(b) The KPTCL had entrusted the task of conducting

the aptitude test to the KEA, which is a Society established

 - 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

by the State of Karnataka with the objective of conducting

common entrance examinations, Aptitude and such other

tests, as were necessary for the purposes of admission

into educational institutions and for recruitment.

(c) The KEA, thereafter, proceeded to issue a Note

dated 01.07.2022, whereby it stipulated that the

competitive examination for the technical test would be

conducted on 23rd and 24th of July 2022, an Aptitude Test

for the post of Junior Assistant would be conducted on 07th

of August 2022 and the Kannada Language test would also

be conducted on 07th of August of 2022.

(d) Pursuant to the said Notification, on

24.07.2022, a competitive examination for the post of

Junior Assistant (Electrical) (with which we are concerned

in this case) was conducted. This test was off-line and

was an Optical Mark Recognition (“OMR”) based Aptitude

Test.
 - 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

(e) On 25.08.2022 i.e., a day after the

examination was conducted, a Press Note was issued

by the KEA, which reads as follows:

“PRESS NOTE

Provisional Answer Keys-KPTCL recruitment

exams

For recruitment of Assistant Engineers

(Electrical), Assistant Engineers (Civil), Junior
engineer (electrical) and junior engineer (civil)
competitive examination was conducted on
23-07-2022 and 24-07-2022 and for recruitment of
Junior Assistant exam was conducted on
07-08-2022. The provisional Answer Keys of all the
Papers have been published on the KEA Website
http://kea.kar.nic.in on 25-08-2022.

Objections, if any, to the published

provisional answer keys, should be submitted with
justification through e-mail:
recruitment2021kea@gmail.com on or before
02-09-2022 before 5.30 pm. Candidates, while
submitting the objections; should mention name of
the post and paper, version code and question
number. Objections filed without the details of Post,
Question Number or Justifications will not be
 - 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

considered. The decision of the subject expert

committee is final in finalizing the answer key.

Sd/-
Executive Director”

(f) As could be seen from the said Press Note,

objections, if any, to the published provisional answer keys

were invited from the candidates and the candidates were

required to submit their objections through e-mail, duly

mentioning the name of the post applied to, along with the

paper, the version code and the question paper with

regard to which they had objections. It was also made

clear that the objections filed without the aforesaid details

would not be considered. The last date for filing

objections was also stipulated as 02.09.2022. It was,

thereafter, categorically declared that the decision of the

Subject Expert Committee was final in respect of finalizing

the answer keys.

(g) It was stated by the KEA that several candidates

filed their objections to the provisional key answers which

 - 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

were published on 25.08.2022. The KEA has also stated

that it had sent the objections raised by the candidates for

review by an expert body and thereafter, on 27.11.2022,

it published the final key answers based on the opinion of

the Expert Body.

(h) As stated above, the Press Note dated

25.08.2022 had declared that the decision of the Subject

Expert Committee was final in the matter of finalizing the

answer keys. Thus, according to the Press Note, the

revised answers keys published on 27.12.2022 was final.

(i) Pursuant to the finalized answer keys, a

provisional score list of eligible candidates was also

published on 03.01.2023 (Annexure ‘N’).

(j) In the objections, it has been stated by KEA that

to this provisional select list, which was released on

03.01.2023, objections were invited and it was found that

the candidates, instead of submitting objections to the

provisional score list, had submitted objections to the

 - 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

revised key answers in huge numbers. It is stated that

about 900 objections were received, and in view of a large

number of objections received in respect of few questions,

a decision was taken to re-verify those questions.

(k) It is stated that in that review, it was found that

there was a typing error in relation to question No.35 and

a slight ambiguity in respect of question No.76, due to

which the Expert Committee decided to award grace

marks for these questions.

(j) However, in the synopsis of the arguments

submitted, it is started that on 13.01.2023, one

Sri.Siddappa K. Yandigeri had preferred WP

No.100378/2023 before the High Court at Dharwad,

seeking awarding of grace marks to question No.26, 94,

and 96 of version “B1”. And similarly, other writ petitions

were filed raising objections to the final key answers

published on 27.12.2023.
 - 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

(k) It is stated that on 23.01.2023, the High Court at

Dharwad disposed of W.P. No.100378 of 2022, directing

the KEA to consider the representations filed by the

petitioner within four weeks. It is stated that in light of

these legal proceedings, and having regard to the fact that

the selection process had not yet been finalized and that a

select list had not been drawn and published and also

taking into consideration that KEA had received as many

as 900 objections to the key answers, the Authority had

decided to re-assess the entire revaluation process to

minimize hardship to the candidates.

(l) It is stated that accordingly, the entire paper was

referred to a body of Subject Experts, who, after

verification, came to the conclusion, that there was a

typing error in question No.35 and an ambiguity in

question No.76. It accordingly recommended awarding of

grace marks. On the basis of this opinion, the changes in

the form of revised key answers were incorporated and

 - 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

their provisional merit list was published and submitted to

the KPTCL.

(m) It was stated that as per the provisional score

list dated 03.01.2023, 501 candidates were found to be

eligible as per the eligibility criteria, but after the revision

of the final key answers, 636 candidates were found to be

eligible and their names were also included in the

provisional merit list.

(m) The petitioners, being aggrieved of the revision

of the Finalized key answers, are before this Court seeking

the aforementioned reliefs.

(n) It is their contention that the KEA had,

fundamentally, no jurisdiction to review the finalized key

answers on the basis of the objections it had received, to

the provisional score list which was determined on the

basis of the marks secured. It was contended that,

admittedly, the objections had been received in respect of

the provisional key answers published on 25.08.2022 and

 - 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

the subject experts had also finalized the key answers,

based on the objections raised pursuant to the key

answers published on 25.08.2022 and once the key

answers were finalized, there was no question of seeking a

further review of the same.

(o) It is contended that if it was permissible for the

KEA to review the finalized list based on the objections

received in January 2023, i.e., after the stipulated date of

02.09.2023, the very meaning of ‘finality’ as stated in the

press note would be rendered nugatory.

(p) It is contended that when the key answers were

finalized by the subject experts on consideration of the

objections raised, and consequently, it was not permissible

for either the candidates or for the KEA to once again seek

review of the key answers to refer the matter to another

body of subject experts.

 - 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

(q) It is contended that by virtue of the revised final

answer keys, several people who were ineligible had

become eligible.

(r) Several people, who had not chosen to answer

the questions at all, were also being awarded with grace

marks and this would severely prejudice those candidates

who had answered the questions correctly.

(s) It is contended that the procedure adopted

fundamentally ensured that a person who did not know

the answer was also awarded with a mark and this

diminished the chances of a person who had correctly

answered to secure a better ranking. It is, therefore,

prayed that the entire exercise pursuant to the publication

of the final answer keys on 27.12.2022, which has

culminated in the publication of the revised final answer

keys on 04.02.2023 and the consequential, provisional

merit list of eligible candidates, would have to be quashed.

 - 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

6. The learned counsel appearing for the KEA submits

that when the Authority received about 900 objections to

the key answers when it had called for objections to the

provisional merit list, the Authority took the view that the

matter deserves a second look and hence, in the larger

interest of all the candidates, the matter had been referred

to Subject Expert Committee, who ultimately concluded

that the there was a typing error and an ambiguity in the

answer to the 2nd question and recommended awarding of

two grace marks to all the candidates. It is contended

that only in order to ensure that no injustice was caused

to anybody, the Authority had adopted this procedure and

the procedure adopted being rational and fair, could not be

subjected to a scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

7. It is also contended that the re-evaluation of the

decision to take a second look at the finalized answer keys

was also a result of the direction issued by this Court in

W.P. No.100378 of 2022, which directed the KEA to

 - 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

consider the representation filed by the petitioner and

taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances,

a decision was taken which was in the interest of all the

candidates and therefore, no fault could be found with the

procedure adopted by the KEA.

8. The learned counsel for the KPTCL contended that it

merely acted upon the results of the competitive

examination conducted by the KEA and accepted the

provisional merit list published by it. It is contended that

the KPTCL had no role to play either in the matter of

conducting of the examination or in the preparation of the

provisional merit list and therefore, no fault can be

attributed to it.

9. In the light of the arguments advanced by all

concerned, the only point that would arise for

consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the

KEA possessed the power to refer the objections

 - 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

raised by the candidates after it had already

published the finalized key answers.

10. As noted above in the recruitment notification, the

requirement was to conduct a competitive examination

and this task was entrusted to the KEA—an Authority

which had been set up with the sole objective of

conducting examinations.

11. The Examination Authority—an expert body in

conducting examinations, chose to issue a press note, in

which it stated that immediately after the examinations

were conducted on 24.08.2022 the provisional key

answers of all the papers would be published on the KEA

website on 25.08.2022 and the objections, if any, to the

published provisional answer keys would have to be

submitted with justification through e-mail on or before

02.09.2022. It was also clearly stipulated that the

candidates, while submitting their objections, were

required to mention the name of the post and paper, the

 - 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

version code and question number in respect of which they

were filing objections. It was made clear that if these

details were not furnished, the objections would not be

considered at all.

12. Finally, it was categorically declared that the decision

of the Subject Expert Committee was final in the matter of

the finalized answer key. Thus, the answer keys that were

to be finalised after consideration of the objections raised

by the candidates before 02.09.2022 were declared to be

final by the Authority itself in its Press Note and this was

to the knowledge of all the candidates.

13. Admittedly, pursuant to the publication of the

provisional answer keys, objections, in fact, were raised by

several people and the same were referred to the Subject

Expert Committee, who accepted the objections in respect

of two questions, namely question Nos.24 and 25, and

proceeded to award grace marks to them. The Expert

Committee admittedly published a finalized answer key for

 - 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

all the questions and by virtue of the Press Note, this

finalized answer key was final and binding.

14. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to this finalized

answer key, a provisional score list was also published on

03.01.2023 and objections were invited to the provisional

score list. Obviously, the objections that were called for

was only in respect of the placement of the candidates in

the score list and objections, if any, raised to the key

answers could not be the subject matter of consideration

since that phase was over on 02.09.2022, i.e., the last

date fixed for raising objections to the provisional answer

keys. The objections called for was to be only in relation to

the placement of the candidates on the basis of the marks

secured by them in the examination.

15. It has to be noted here that if any candidate chose

not to raise objections to the provisional key answers

published on or before 02.09.2022, he had basically

foregone his right to object to the provisional key answers

 - 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

that had been published and had to accept the

subsequently declared finalized key answers.

16. The KEA, by entertaining the objections raised

pursuant to the provisional score list published on

03.01.2023, basically permitted the candidates to raise

objections to the key answers which had already been

finalized and published on 27.12.2022. In other words,

those persons who had not objected to the key answers

were given a second opportunity to raise objections to the

key answers contrary to the Press Note dated 25.08.2022.

17. The stand of the KEA that having regard to the large

number of objections it had received and that a direction

had been issued in W.P. No.100378 of 2023 to consider

the representation of one of the candidates, to justify its

decision to refer the matter once again to the Subject

Expert Committee, cannot be accepted at all. If the KEA

had itself declared that the answer keys that were finalized

after considering the objections received pursuant to the

 - 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

publication of the provisional key answers, it obviously

could not embark upon a second exercise in revising the

already finalized key answers.

18. In fact, this procedure fundamentally amounts to

revising a list which had already been finalized, contrary to

the Authority’s own declaration. It is, therefore, clear that

the decision of KEA to consider the objections that had

been received pursuant to releasing the provisional score

list of eligible candidates was totally without jurisdiction.

Consequentially, any revision that had been made

pursuant to the objections received after 03.01.2023,

would be of absolutely no consequence and as a further

consequence, the decision of the Subject Expert

Committee to revise the finalized answer keys by

publishing another set of finalized answer keys was non

est.

19. Thus, it will have to be held that the revised final

answer keys dated 04.02.2023 and the consequential

 - 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

provisional merit list published on 04.02.2023, cannot be

sustained and the same would have to be quashed.

20. However, the learned counsel for the KEA put forth

the contention that the KEA, pursuant to the publication of

the finalized answer keys on 27.12.2022, had only issued

a provisional score list of eligible candidates and that the

same did not amount to preparation of a provisional merit

list.

21. This submission would have to be stated, only to be

rejected. As could be seen from the recruitment

notification, the Authority was fundamentally required to

publish a list of candidates who had secured more than

35% marks in the examination in the order of their

relative merit, as that was the prescribed percentage to be

eligible for consideration for appointment. The Authority

choosing to give the said list a nomenclature as

‘provisional score list’ or a ‘provisional merit list’ would be

of no consequence since the list published after the

 - 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

declaration of the finalized answer keys was a list of

eligible candidates arranged in the order of their

respective merit.

22. The KEA was to conduct an examination, furnish

provisional answer keys, call for objections and on

consideration of the objections, publish a finalized set of

answer keys, on the basis of which it was required to

prepare a list of candidates who had secured marks of

more than 35%.

23. The Authority did not possess any jurisdiction to

embark upon a venture of re-evaluating the finalized

answer keys, especially on the basis of objections that had

been received after the prescribed cut-off date i.e.,

07.09.2022. The argument of the Authority cannot,

therefore, be accepted.

24. The other argument that passing of an order in W.P.

No.100378 of 2023 also prompted the Authority do decide

 - 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

on re-evaluating the answer keys is also an argument

which will have to be rejected in its entirety.

25. W.P. No.100378 of 2023 was filed by one

Sri.Siddappa K.Yandigeri, for issuance of a direction to the

respondents to issue a reply to his letters dated

06.01.2023 and 03.01.2023, and also for quashing

question nos.26, 94 and 96 of “B1” version of the question

paper and as a consequence, grant him grace marks.

26. The Authority did not choose to bring it to the notice

of this Court that the time fixed for filing objections to the

provisional list of answer keys had already expired and the

final answer keys were also published after consideration

of the objections that they have received. This Court

merely directed the Authority to consider the

representation made by the petitioner and this Court also

made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

 - 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

27. The Authority, in light of the fact that it had already

published the final answer keys, ought to have rejected

the representations of Siddappa K.Yandigeri by stating

that he had chosen to raise objections to the provisional

answer keys only on 03.01.2023 and 06.01.2023 i.e.,

beyond the prescribed date of 02.01.2022.

28. Instead of adopting this procedure, the Authority has

essentially used the order passed by this court as a ruse to

embark upon the adventure of re-evaluating the finalised

answer keys. This conduct of the Authority cannot really

be appreciated as fair and proper.

29. The other argument that as a result of re-evaluation,

136 candidates had become eligible, by itself, proves that

injustice caused to 136 candidates were remedied, cannot

also be accepted.

30. It has to be stated here that these 136 candidates,

no doubt, became eligible pursuant to the reevaluation of

the already finalised answer keys, however, at the same

 - 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

time it is to be borne in mind that the persons who were

ineligible, were made eligible by virtue of this improper

procedure adopted by the KEA and in a process which

requires fairness to all concerned, such procedure, which

would aid one section and deprive the right of another,

cannot be countenanced.

31. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal Nos.5316-5319 of 2013 to contend that it is

impermissible for the Authority to re-evaluate the finalized

answer keys when it discovered that there have been

serious objections raised to the answer keys. It has to be

stated here that in the case relied upon, the Apex Court

was not dealing with a case where a procedure had been

prescribed for consideration of the objections to a

provisional set of answer keys by an Expert Committee

and the publication of the final set of answer keys

thereafter.
 - 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the

case in which, after the appointments were made,

objections had been raised regarding the defects/

mistakes in a set of questions and in that regard, a

decision has been taken to constitute an Expert Committee

to look into the case and the said Committee found several

errors.

33. As noticed above, in the present case, a process was

clearly prescribed for publication of a provisional set of

answer keys, invitation of objections and thereafter,

reference of the objections to the Subject Expert

Committee for finalization of the answer keys and the

answer keys so finalized by the Expert Committee after

considering the objections were, to be published and which

was, in fact, declared to be final.

34. In light of this factual aspect, the reliance placed on

the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

would be of no avail.
 - 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

35. The reliance placed on the judgment of a

co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11216 of 2017

(Harish B. v. State of Karnataka, disposed of on

29.06.2021) to contend that the Court should not re-

evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets and that the

Court should presume the correctness of the key answers

and proceed under that presumption, cannot be a

proposition on which one can have a different opinion.

36. As stated above, in this case, a Subject Expert

Committee considered the objections that had been raised

pursuant to the publication of the provisional answer keys

published and only thereafter, the answer keys were

published.

37. It has to be stated here that this Court is merely

affirming the correctness of the finalised answer keys

which, even according to the Press Note of the Authority,

had been declared to be final and binding. This Court, on

the basis of the said decision, cannot come to the

 - 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

conclusion that the decision relied upon entitles the

Authority to have a second look on the answer keys which

had already been finalized.

38. It is also to be borne in mind that if the argument of

the KEA is accepted, there would be no finality in the

matter of finalization of the answer keys. Once the

objections were called for and the same were considered

by the Subject Expert Committee, following which a final

set of answer keys were published, it was simply

impermissible for the Authority to have a second look.

39. In fact, if this argument is to be extended further, if

the KEA were to receive a further set of objections, it

would basically entitle the Authority to embark upon

another exercise of finalizing “the revised finalised answer

keys” and this would, essentially, be a never ending

process.

40. In fact, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of Dr.Praveen Kumar I Kusubi vs. Rajiv Gandhi

 - 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

University of Health Science, Bangalore and others -

ILR 2O03 KAR 805 has stated that when a Committee of

Experts has been constituted and after considering a

challenge to the answer keys, the Committee of Experts

had determined as to what the correct answer was, it was

not open for entertaining a contention that the answers

given by the Subject Experts should not be accepted. This

Court, in fact, stated that in all such matters, at some

stage, there should be a finality.

41. In the result, the answer keys published on

04.02.2023 and the provisional merit list dated

04.02.2023, which have been produced as Annexures ‘A’

and ‘B’ in Writ Petition No.4572 of 2023 are quashed and

the KPTCL is directed to proceed to act only on the basis of

the provisional score list of eligible candidates dated

03.01.2023, and conclude the process of selection within a

period of 4 months.
 - 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29867
WP No. 2185 of 2023
C/W WP No. 2257 of 2023
WP No. 4572 of 2023
WP No. 17481 of 2023

42. Post these matters for reporting compliance of these

directions on 18.12.2023.

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

Sd/-
JUDGE

RK
CT:SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1