Karnataka High Court Directs State Power Corporation To Hold Fresh Recruitment Exam As Candidates Were Not Told About Negative Marks

A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing a batch of appeals challenging a single judge order said, “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. The Final Score List dated 12.06.2024 and the Provisional Score List dated 08.05.2024 are hereby quashed.”

It added “Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to conduct a re-examination expeditiously and within reasonable time for all candidates who appeared in the examination on 18.02.2024 pursuant to the Notification dated 03.08.2017. The re-examination shall be conducted subject to the condition of negative marking, and such condition shall expressly be communicated to all candidates much before examination.”

Negative marking is a substantive condition has serious repercussions

The bench noted that 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. Such a condition is substantive and must be explicitly stated.

Observing that “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 examination. The contention advanced by Respondent No.1 KPCL that the condition applies by implication is untenable.”

It said “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.”

Admission ticket, question paper silent on negative marking

The court noted that while earlier round of exam in 2018 had an express condition of negative marking, however the re-exam conducted in 2024 by a different agency although specifying certain instructions, were silent on the condition of negative marking. 

“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,” it said.

Following which it held “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 bench was hearing an appeal by appellants Naveen Kumar N and others challenging a single judge order's of July 10, 2024, which had rejected their petitions. The posts for which examination was conducted are–Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Assistant Engineer (Civil), and Junior Engineer (Civil).

Background

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) issued a Notification dated 03.08.2017 inviting applications for recruitment. The appellants submitted applications for the posts of Junior/Assistant Engineer and appeared for the written examination conducted on 21.01.2018. On 23.06.2018, KPCL cancelled the written examination held on 21.01.2018.

Subsequently a re-examination was conducted by Respondent No.3 –Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) on 18.02.2024, in which the appellants participated. However on 08.05.2024 KEA issued a Notification informing the candidates that one-third (1/3rd) mark would be deducted for every wrong answer.

Thereafter certain candidates moved two writ petitions–one challenging the provisional score list and the other challenging the final score list. Both pleas were dismissed against which the candidates approached the division bench. 

The appellants argued that 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. However the Single Judge had said that the candidates, having participated in the written examination, cannot subsequently challenge the introduction of negative marking.

Findings

The court said that after comparing the admission tickets and question booklets of the 2018 and 2024 examinations, the single judge had observed that the 1/3rd negative marking prescribed in 2018 was absent in 2024. Nevertheless, the Single Judge proceeded to hold that the 2024 examination was merely a re-examination of the 2018 examination. The bench said that this run contrary to the settled legal principle that the rules of the game cannot be altered after the game has commenced or concluded. 

It further emphasized that “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.”

The court said “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.”

Refusing to accept the reasoning of the single judge the bench said “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.”

The court said that the imposition of negative marking after the examination is a subsequent development, which causes prejudice to the candidates' rights. Hence candidates were entitled to seek redressal of their grievance through appropriate proceedings–i.e. writ petitions.

Following which it allowed the appeals and quashed the single judge's order.

Case Title: Naveen Kumar N & Others AND M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others

Counsel for appellants: Advocates M.K. Prithveesh, Neeraj Sastry, Vinayaka B. Vishnu Batta, A.L. Parashuram

Counsel for R1: Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for Advocate Ajay J. Nandalike

Counsel for R 3: Advocate N.K. Ramesh 

Counsel for impleading applicants in I.A.No.5 of 2024: Advocate Suraj Naik for Advocate Praveen Kumar for the impleading applicants in 

Counsel forimpleading applicants in I.A.No.6 of 2024: Advocate Keshav M. Datar 

Counsel for impleading applicants in I.A.No.7 of 2024: Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar for Advocate R. Siri

Counsel for impleading applications in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.1018 of 2024: Advocate M.S. Rajendra for 

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 192