The Karnataka High Court has directed Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) to conduct a fresh examination for six engineering posts, after finding that candidates were not informed about the application of negative marking in the recruitment exam held on February 18, 2024. The court observed that this omission significantly altered the “rules of the game” and prejudiced the candidates' rights.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind was hearing a group of appeals filed by candidates who had challenged the results of the February exam. The court quashed the provisional score list dated May 8, 2024, and the final score list dated June 12, 2024, while also setting aside the orders of the single judge dated June 12 and July 10, 2024, which had earlier dismissed the candidates' petitions.
“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,” the bench directed.
The case involved recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical/Civil) and Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical/Civil). KPCL had issued a notification on August 3, 2017, inviting applications, and an earlier round of examination was conducted on January 21, 2018. However, that exam was later cancelled on June 23, 2018, and a re-examination was subsequently held on February 18, 2024, by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA).
During the 2018 exam, candidates were clearly informed through the admission ticket and question booklet that there would be a deduction of one-third mark for every incorrect answer. However, the court noted that in the 2024 exam, the admission ticket and question booklet were conspicuously silent on the applicability of negative marking.
The recruitment notification, rules and regulations also did not contain any clause relating to negative marking, the court said. The bench made it clear that applying negative marking after the exam had concluded, without prior notification, was arbitrary and unjustified.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Youth for Reselling IPL Tickets
The appellants argued that the negative marking condition was only communicated on May 8, 2024, after the exam had concluded, when KEA published the provisional score list. They contended that this change affected the examination outcome, as candidates had no prior knowledge or opportunity to adjust their strategy accordingly. The single judge had previously dismissed these claims, stating that candidates could not challenge the exam conditions after participation. However, the division bench disagreed with this reasoning.
It is a settled legal position in service jurisprudence that the ‘rules of the game’ must not be altered midway or after the game has been played, the court stated. It further held that substantive conditions such as negative marking, which significantly affect candidates’ approach and performance, must be explicitly notified in advance.
Respondent KPCL argued that negative marking was standard practice in previous exams and that candidates should have reasonably expected it in the 2024 exam as well. The corporation also claimed that candidates could have obtained clarification through its helpline or by asking invigilators. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that such informal communication could not replace the official notification required under law.
The bench emphasized that the KEA and KPCL had no authority to introduce or enforce new conditions after the examination had taken place. It noted that nearly 18,000 candidates appeared for the exam, but only a few challenged the results. However, the court dismissed the argument that the number of challengers should influence the decision.
“If an examination is required to be conducted, it must be held in accordance with the prescribed rules, regulations, terms, and conditions. An examination conducted otherwise is unsustainable,” the court held.
Highlighting that the candidates' right to be informed was compromised, the court concluded that the examination held on February 18, 2024, stood vitiated and directed KPCL and KEA to conduct a fresh exam. It clarified that the re-examination must include the negative marking condition, which should be clearly communicated to all candidates in advance.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on upholding transparency and fairness in public recruitment processes.
Case Title: Naveen Kumar N & Others vs. M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others
Judges: Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind
Date of Judgment: May 28, 2025
Advocates for Appellants: M.K. Prithveesh, Neeraj Sastry, Vinayaka B. Vishnu Batta, A.L. Parashuram
Advocates for Respondents: P.S. Rajagopal (Senior Counsel), Ajay J. Nandalike, N.K. Ramesh, and others for impleading applicants.
