Karnataka High Court Quashes KPCL Exam Results For Imposing Negative Marking Without Prior Notice; Directs Fresh Exam With Clear Notification

A Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind observed, “The condition of negative marking ought to have been notified prior to the conduct of the examination… The candidates could not have been reasonably expected to presume the applicability of negative marking at a date subsequent to the completion of the examination… which causes prejudice to the candidates’ rights.”

The Court added, “The rules of the game must not be altered midway or after the game has been played.”

Advocate Parashuram A. L represented the Appellants, while the Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

KPCL issued a recruitment notification in August 2017 for various technical posts. An exam was conducted in January 2018, later cancelled. A re-exam was held on February 18, 2024, by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA). While the earlier exam materials had notified of negative marking, the 2024 re-exam admit cards and question booklets did not mention it. However, negative marking was retrospectively applied in the provisional and final score lists issued in May and June 2024. These actions were challenged and dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved, the candidates who appeared in the 2024 KPCL re-exam approached the High Court.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the 2024 re-examination was conducted on entirely new admit cards and question booklets issued by KEA, and that these materials did not contain any instructions about negative marking. Refusing to accept the Respondents’ contention that conditions from the earlier 2018 exam carried over, the Court stated, “Upon careful perusal of these instructions, it is evident that no condition relating to negative marking has been imposed. Furthermore, there is neither any express nor implied indication that the conditions applicable to the examination held on 21.01.2018 apply to the re-examination.”

The Court acknowledged that negative marking is a substantive and consequential element of any competitive exam. Bench noted, “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.”

The Bench referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in The Assam Public Service Commission v. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (2020) and Hemant Krishna Maurya v. State of U.P. (2020), and noted that the absence of prior notice about negative marking deprives candidates of the opportunity to tailor their answering strategy.

The Bench rejected KPCL’s attempt to rely on past practice and alleged oral disclosures. It noted that KPCL had failed to include any reference to negative marking in the 2024 materials and that any such omission could not be cured by post-exam instructions or press notes. “The instructions contained in the admission ticket and question booklet for the 2024 examination are conspicuously silent on the applicability of negative marking… The suggestion advanced by Respondent No.1 effectively places the onus on the candidates to presume the applicability of negative marking”, the Court added.

The Court criticised the fact that negative marking was introduced only after the exam, through a press note issued in May 2024, which was almost three months after the test was held. The Court observed, “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… Thus, the rules of the game were altered not during the course of the examination, but after its completion.”

The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court wherein it had been held that recruitment process commences from the issuance of calling for applications and ends with filling of vacancies, and eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the extant rules so permit.

The Court held that KPCL’s arguments based on estoppel, past KPCL practices, or the number of affected candidates were irrelevant. “If an examination is required to be conducted, it must be held in accordance with the prescribed rules, regulations, terms, and conditions… The number of candidates who have brought the cause before the Court is immaterial; what matters is the cause itself”, it added.

The Bench disagreed with the Single Judge’s view that the re-exam was governed by the earlier instructions of 2018 and criticised the finding that non-application of negative marking would change the rules.

While the Court refrained from directing that a new score list be prepared without negative marking, it made it clear that any fresh examination must now incorporate such conditions beforehand, if intended.

Consequently, the Court allowed all the writ appeals and set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the connected writ petitions. It also quashed the provisional and final score lists issued by the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) and the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), which had retrospectively applied negative marking to the re-examination held on February 18, 2024.

The Court further directed KPCL and KEA to conduct a fresh re-examination for all candidates who appeared pursuant to the original recruitment notification dated August 3, 2017. Importantly, the Court mandated that if negative marking is to be applied, it must be explicitly informed to all candidates well in advance of the examination.

Cause Title: Naveen Kumar N. & Ors. v. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.1298 of 2024)

Appearance

Appellants: Advocate Parashuram A. L., M.K. Prithveesh, Neeraj Satry, Vinayaka B. Vishnu Batta

Respondents: Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal; Advocates N.K. Ramesh, Ajay J. Nandalike

Applicants: Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar; Suraj Naik, Praveen Kumar, Keshav M. Datar, R. Siri, M.S. Rajendra