S G Jamaludheen etc. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. etc.
Background
The Karnataka Public Service Commission had advertised 145 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors in 2006, but the recruitment notification and resulting appointments were quashed years later by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for not matching a central government qualification requirement (at least one year's workshop experience). The Karnataka High Court upheld that decision. The appointed candidates and the State appealed to the Supreme Court, and by the time the case reached final hearing, the affected appointees had already been working for over a decade under the Court's own interim protection orders.
Decision Breakdown
After years of litigation and multiple hearings, the parties worked out a negotiated resolution: 16 identified original applicants (who had pursued the case from the Tribunal stage onward) agreed to withdraw their challenge and accept appointment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors themselves, without claiming back-wages or seniority over the already-serving appointees, in exchange for an age relaxation. The Supreme Court accepted this compromise, exercising its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do "complete justice." It directed the State to appoint these 16 persons by 31 March 2026, ruled that this settlement should not be treated as a precedent, and closed all connected contempt petitions and applications.
Lesson Learnt
In long-running service disputes where quashing an entire recruitment would disrupt years of settled employment, courts can use their constitutional powers to craft a practical compromise that protects existing employees while also accommodating the original complainants, rather than mechanically enforcing the strict legal outcome for either side.