Karnataka High Court Reads Ambiguous Experience Rules in Candidates' Favour

CourtBook reports that on October 6, 2026, a two-judge Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, made up of Justice R. Devdas and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, decided a batch of connected writ petitions arising from the 2016 recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors for the Karnataka Transport Department ^[1]. The Bench held that experience from more than one workshop could count toward the one-year requirement where those workshops together dealt with all three prescribed vehicle categories and the combined experience exceeded one year. It also held that candidates could not be refused appointment because their certificates did not show work on petrol-engine heavy vehicles ^[1].

The requirement and the dispute

The recruitment notification, dated February 4, 2016, covered 150 posts ^[1]. Candidates needed at least one year of experience in a reputed automobile workshop that repaired Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPVs) fitted with petrol and diesel engines ^[1].

The recruitment had already been litigated. In 2021 the High Court directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to consider the candidates' experience certificates and proceed under the original 2016 notification ^[1]. A revised final selection list followed on October 26, 2023, but several candidates were still denied appointment after their certificates were verified ^[1].

What the court decided

One of the main questions before the Bench was whether a candidate needed one year of experience separately in each prescribed vehicle category ^[1]. The Bench found the wording of the requirement ambiguous and held that it could not reasonably be read as demanding a full year in each of the three categories, observing that in such cases "the benefit should be given to the candidates instead of rejecting their candidature" ^[1]. It upheld the view of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) that combined experience from different workshops could satisfy the requirement, on the condition that the workshops collectively handled all three categories and the candidate's combined experience was more than one year ^[1].

On the petrol-engine point, the Bench noted that there had been no petrol-engine HGVs or HPVs in India for several decades ^[1]. It found it unreasonable for authorities to accept certificates from State transport corporations claiming such experience while rejecting candidates whose certificates did not mention it ^[1].

Why it matters to health managers

This is a transport-sector recruitment case, and CourtBook's story does not discuss clinical or health-sector hiring ^[1]. Readers who draft position descriptions or check experience letters may still note how the Bench handled two issues in this recruitment: it resolved ambiguity in a prescribed qualification in favour of the candidates, and it objected to verification that credited one set of certificates for experience that could not have existed while penalising another set for omitting it ^[1].

The recruitment began with a 2016 notification and reached this judgment in 2026, after earlier litigation in 2021 and a revised list in 2023 ^[1]. The story does not address whether or how the reasoning would apply to other employers or sectors ^[1].

What to watch next

The High Court dismissed the State's petition, allowed the candidates' petitions and quashed the relevant KSAT orders ^[1]. It directed that eligible candidates named in the revised final select list of October 26, 2023 be appointed with applicable benefits, including seniority, and ordered fresh reports where further verification was required ^[1]. Appointment orders must be issued within two months of the authorities receiving the certified order ^[1].

The story does not report how many candidates are affected or whether the State intends any further challenge ^[1]. The lead matter is State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri Srinivasa B.N. & Anr., W.P. No. 126 of 2025, decided together with W.P. Nos. 5483 of 2025, 5701 of 2025 and other connected petitions ^[1].