'You Took Away A Poor Candidate's Chance': Karnataka High Court Questions Ex-KPSC Chairman's Daughter Over Reservation Claim

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 27) orally observed that the daughter of former Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shiva Shankarappa S. Sahukar had taken away the opportunity of a genuinely eligible candidate in a recruitment process, by claiming reservation after declaring her family's annual income as ₹40,000 despite her father having drawn a monthly salary of about ₹2.25 lakh as KPSC Chairman.

For context, Suma S Sahukar claimed reservation under Category 3B in the Public Service Commission's recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The 3B category reservation is an Other Backward Classes (OBC) classification that provides a 5% reservation in government jobs and educational institution admissions for persons belonging to designated communities (Lingayats and their sub-sects, Marathas, and Christians etc) with annual income below Rs 8 lakhs.

She has been booked under Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the BNS for seeking reservation on the basis of a fake income certificate.

While hearing her plea to quash the FIR, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna today made a series of strong oral observations.

“…How long do you want to hoodwink the people? Every selection is marred with controversy. You participated in 3B category or not? A genuine candidate whose real income is ₹40,000 p.a could have participated under 3B. You took away the chance of that poor person. Haven't you stolen that chance?” the court orally questioned the petitioner.

After an extended hearing and the Court's repeated queries, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, withdrew the petition with liberty to approach the High Court after the police files its final report.

The petitioner initially challenged the registration of the complaint without proper verification under Rule 7A of the SC/ST Appointment and Reservation Rules [Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Glasses (Reservation of Appointments, Etc) Rules, 1992], which requires a District Caste & Income Verification Committee enquiry.

Questioning the contention, the Court orally observed that no such enquiry was necessary where the alleged fraud was apparent.

“What enquiry do you want? Enquiry should be conducted if there is any ambiguity. Chairman's daughter participates in an examination under Category 3B declaring her income as Rs 40,000 while it is Rs25 lakhs per annum. What should happen to a person who is on merit? Then what procedure do you want to follow? Fraud is apparent”. Court asked

The petitioner's counsel argued that she had disclosed only her personal income and that there was no prohibition against participating in the recruitment process. It was also submitted that the final selection list had not yet been published.

Unconvinced however, the Court remarked,

“…Whether it's the final or provisional list, that's not the issue…it's the issue of your act of participating under 3B giving your family income as Rs 40,000 when it's Rs 30 lakhs per annum. Is it not? Is it not an eyewash? Is it not a day light fraud?"

When the petitioner submitted that she believed she was required to disclose only her personal income and had not deprived anyone of an opportunity, the Court responded,

“…If you don't know information about whose income and what income, how would you enter government service?”

Rejecting the petitioner's insistence on compliance with Rule 7A, the Court further observed, “…That's in case if there is ambiguity. There is no 'prima facie' here. It's open and shut case. For what reason, the rule has to be followed? Rule cannot be followed in vacuum unless it causes prejudice…What prejudice is there”, the court orally told the petitioner.

After arguing the matter for some time, the counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition.

For context, the case against Suma was registered based on a complaint made by BN Shobha, Assistant Secretary- Karnataka Public Service Commission.

As per the prosecution, Suma had claimed reservation under Category 3B in the Public Service Commission's recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Industries and Commerce. It was alleged that reservation was claimed on the basis of a fake income certificate in which the family's annual income was shown as Rs 40,000 whereas Suma's father received a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 2.25 lakh per month as KPSC chairperson.

Last week, the trial court had granted anticipatory bail to Suma, noting that a custodial interrogation was not necessary in the case.

It is pertinent to note here that the High Court had later clarified that its interim stay on the Karnataka Public Service Commission's (KPSC) June 19 resolution would operate only in respect of the "Additional Agenda" item calling upon its former Chairman, Shiva Shankarappa S. Sahukar, to resign, and would not extend to the other thirteen agenda items from which he had recused himself. Agenda No.4 in the said meeting prior to the resolution was related to reservation for Suma to the post of Group 'C' Industrial Extension Officer.

Case Title: Suma S Sahukar v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl. P 10292/2026