P.S. Dinesh Kumar JUDGMENT
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
1. These public interest litigations are filed, inter alia, with a prayer to quash the order dated October 19, 2016, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short), Bengaluru, in Application Nos. 6268 to 6395 of 2014 and connected matters.
2. Applicants before the KAT were candidates, who appeared for 2011 Karnataka Gazetted Probationers' Examination. They were selected as per the select list dated March 21, 2013, issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission ('KPSC' for short). The State Government vide Government Order dated August 14, 2014, withdrew the requisitions made by them to the K.P.S.C. and ordered for closure of recruitment process of Gazetted Probationers for the year 2011. Being aggrieved, the applicants challenged the said Government Order before the KAT. By the order impugned, the KAT allowed the applications and quashed the Government Order dated August 14, 2014 and, further, directed the State Government to issue appointment order to the applicants in terms of Rule 11(3) of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 ('Recruitment Rules' for short).
3. This Court vide an interim order dated April 5, 2017, restrained the respondents from making any appointment in terms of the order passed by the KAT.
4. In Writ Petition Nos. 13617 to 13627 of 2017 and 14529 of 2017, some of the selected candidates filed two interlocutory applications registered as I.A. Nos. IV and V of 2017 seeking their impleadment as party-respondents and to recall that portion of the interim order dated April 5, 2017, restraining the authorities from making any appointments, respectively.
5. In the meanwhile, the petitioners moved an interlocutory application, I.A. No. IX of 2017, seeking to implead the proposed respondent Nos. 5 to 366. Notices were ordered to the proposed respondents and some of them were served.
6. In the interregnum, the respondents-State moved an application - I.A. No. X of 2017 to vacate the interim order dated April 5, 2017.
7. The applications, I.A. Nos. V and X, in substance contained a similar prayer, that is to vacate the interim order dated April 5, 2017. Hence, they were considered together and this Court vide order dated April 21, 2017, dismissed the application filed by the State to vacate the interim order. Consequently, I.A. No. V of 2017 was, also, dismissed.
8. Even before all the proposed respondents are served and I.A. No. IX is ordered, 81 out of 366 proposed respondents have moved the present application I.A. No. XI with a prayer to vacate that portion of the order dated April 5, 2017, restraining the authorities from issuing any orders of appointment.
9. We have heard Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior advocate for the applicants in I.A. No. XI of 2017, Mr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr. P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior advocate for the KPSC, Mr. B.M. Arun, learned advocate for the proposed respondent No. 23, Mr. Udaya Holla and Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior advocates for the writ petitioners.
10. Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned senior advocate, vehemently contended that the petitioners are unsuccessful candidates, who appeared for the 2011 Gazetted Probationers' examination. Therefore, these public interest litigations presented by them are not maintainable. The right course for them was to approach the KAT for redressal of their grievances, if any. But, the petitioners bypassing the KAT, have directly challenged its order directing the State Government to appoint the selected candidates in the guise of these public interest writ petitions. Such conduct of the petitioners disentitles them........