1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
WP No.27674/2012 (GM-PIL)
c/w WP No.27730/2012 (GM-PIL)

Between:
Khaleel Ahmed K.R
&
..Petitioners

Others

And:
State of Karnataka
&
.Respondents
Objections of the Petitioners
Submitted by the KPSC

Others

to

the

New

List

The Petitioners humbly submit and state as follows:

1. The Respondent No. 3 (KPSC) has uploaded on their
website the following:
a. New list of candidates (383) of the 1998 batch;
b. the list of candidates whose posts get varied (140);
c. the list of candidates whose ranking change, but
posts does not vary (8);
d. the list of candidates who are newly included in the
list (28);
e. the list of candidates who go out of the select list
(25) and
f. the list of candidates who got selected but were not
even eligible for Personality Test (3).
2. In the said material, the KPSC has only given the total
marks awarded to the candidates who figure in the said

lists. The KPSC has not provided the basis and criteria
on which the fresh moderation exercise is done. The
break-up of marks in each subject, moderation details
like Examiners marks, average variation, third
valuation, scaled / final marks in each paper are not
given, which would have enabled for a detailed
analysis.
3. However, on perusal of the said new list and in
comparison with the data collected during the fact
finding exercise, the Petitioners find the following
discrepancies (illustrative, but not exhaustive), which
are given in the table annexed to this objection
statement as Annexure: AA.
4. It can be gathered from the said table that the aspects
of third valuation (pages 7 to 28 of Fact Finding
Committee Report) and wrong totaling (page 18, table
A-6 of Fact Finding Committee Report) have not been
taken into consideration by the KPSC while doing this
fresh exercise.
5. As per the order/ judgment dtd. 11.10.2002 of this
Honble Court in W.P. Nos. 12548-589/2002, in cases
where the average variation is less than plus or
minus 20, but the individual variation is plus or
minus 20 or more, then the said answer-scripts had to

be subjected to third valuation. As noted in the Fact

Finding Committee Report, there are many instances
where third valuation was done, but marks of third
valuation were not taken for final consideration; there
are many instances where third valuation was required
to be done, but was not done and there are many
instances where third valuation was not required to be
done, but was done. The member representing the
KPSC in the Fact Finding Committee has remarked (at
page 12 of the Report) that the said instances pointed
out are only of the selected candidates and it has to be
verified as to whether the same is in respect of other
candidates who have taken up the main written
examination.
6. Hence, it would be just and necessary if the KPSC
provides all the details of the fresh moderation exercise
like: Examiners marks, average variation arrived at,
details of third valuation and break-up of marks in each
paper - of all the candidates who have taken up the
main written examination, whose papers were ordered
to be subjected for moderation and scaling process by
this Honble Court in W.P. 12548-589/2002 vide its order
dated 11.10.2002.

Bangalore
Phadke)
Dt.
Advocate For The Petitioners

(Vikram
17.11.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
WP No.27674/2012 (GM-PIL)
c/w WP No.27730/2012 (GM-PIL)

Between:
Khaleel Ahmed K.R
&
..Petitioners

Others

And:
State of Karnataka
&
.Respondents

Others
Verifying Affidavit

I, Khaleel Ahmed K.R., S/o late Rasool Sab, aged about 48

years,

C/o

Azeez

Khan,

No.

2584,

Idgah

Mohalla,

Chikkaballapur 562101, now at Bangalore, do hereby

solemnly state on oath as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner No. 1 in the above matter and I am
aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. I swear
to this affidavit on behalf of myself and on behalf of other
Petitioners, on being instructed by them.
2. The averments made in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the
accompanying objections are based upon my knowledge,
information and legal advice and I believe them to be true
and correct. Annexure: AA is the tabulated statement on
the basis of facts known to me.
Verification
I, the Deponent, submit that the statements made above are
true and correct.
Bangalore
Dt. 17.11.2014
DEPONENT
Identified by me:
Advocate
No. of Corrections: