{"id":27286,"date":"2026-10-30T18:13:23","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T12:43:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/?p=27286"},"modified":"2026-10-30T18:13:23","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T12:43:23","slug":"supreme-court-karnataka-recruitment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/supreme-court-karnataka-recruitment\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Karnataka Recruitment Case, Background, Provisions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The <\/span><b>Supreme Court Karnataka Recruitment Case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> is about the <\/span><b>2011 KPSC recruitment of 362 Gazetted Probationers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, which was cancelled over <\/span><b>corruption and nepotism<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. On <\/span><b>29 October 2026<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the Supreme Court struck down Karnataka\u2019s <\/span><b>2022 Validation Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, which tried to revive the selection and held that a <\/span><b>legislature cannot overturn final court judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. It also ordered <\/span><b>fresh recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> for the vacant posts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2><b>What is the Supreme Court Karnataka Recruitment Case?<\/b><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The <\/span><b>Supreme Court Karnataka Recruitment Case 2026<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> refers to the judgment of <\/span><b>29 October 2026<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Karnataka law that tried to validate a <\/span><b>corrupt recruitment process<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The case, <\/span><b>Srinivasa T. &amp; Others v. State of Karnataka &amp; Others (2026)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, concerned the <\/span><b>2011 selection of 362 Gazetted Probationers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> for <\/span><b>Group A and B<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> services through the <\/span><b>Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Supreme Court Verdict:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> A Bench of <\/span><b>Justice J.B. Pardiwala<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>Justice K. Vinod Chandran<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> declared the <\/span><b>Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022<\/b> <b>unconstitutional<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The Court held that a state legislature <\/span><b>cannot use a new law to overturn court judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> that had upheld the cancellation.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Origin of the Dispute:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The 2011 KPSC exam faced serious allegations of <\/span><b>corruption, favouritism, mark manipulation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>interview irregularities<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Cancellation of Recruitment:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> After a <\/span><b>CID investigation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the government <\/span><b>cancelled the recruitment in 2014<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The <\/span><b>High Court upheld this in 2018<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, and the <\/span><b>Supreme Court declined to interfere<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>The 2022 Validation Act:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The state passed this law to <\/span><b>revive the cancelled selection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and allow appointments from the old list. The Court found that it <\/span><b>overrode binding judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> without removing their <\/span><b>legal basis<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Final Outcome:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The 2022 law was <\/span><b>struck down<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, appointments under the tainted process were <\/span><b>brought to an end<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>fresh recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> was ordered for the vacant posts, with a <\/span><b>one-time age relaxation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> for eligible candidates.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><b>Background of the Karnataka Public Service Commission Recruitment Controversy<\/b><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Karnataka Public Service Commission recruitment controversy began in 2011 and developed into a prolonged legal dispute involving allegations of examination malpractice, government decisions and the rights of candidates seeking public employment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Recruitment Notification (2011):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> On <\/span><b>3 November 2011<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, Karnataka announced recruitment for <\/span><b>362 Gazetted Probationer posts<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> (Group A and B) under the <\/span><b>Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Cancellation (2014):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> On <\/span><b>14 August 2014<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the government <\/span><b>withdrew the requisition<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>cancelled the entire selection process<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Tribunal Decision (2016):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The <\/span><b>Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> ruled for the selected candidates on <\/span><b>19 October 2016<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and ordered appointments. <\/span><b>18 candidates<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> received <\/span><b>appointment orders<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> in <\/span><b>March 2017<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>High Court Intervention (2018):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> On <\/span><b>9 March 2018<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the <\/span><b>Karnataka High Court<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> set aside the tribunal's order and <\/span><b>upheld the cancellation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, as the irregularities hurt the <\/span><b>credibility of the whole process<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. It also <\/span><b>rejected fresh interviews<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> based on the earlier results.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>The 2022 Validation Act:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The legislature passed the <\/span><b>Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, <\/span><b>notified on 14 March 2022<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, to <\/span><b>validate the selection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> despite the court findings.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Supreme Court Verdict:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Act was challenged before the <\/span><b>Tribunal and High Court<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, and the dispute reached the <\/span><b>Supreme Court<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. On <\/span><b>29 October 2026<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, it <\/span><b>struck down the law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">..<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><b>Supreme Court Judgment on Karnataka Recruitment Case 2026<\/b><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">On 29 October 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Srinivasa T. &amp; Others v. State of Karnataka &amp; Others. The Court ruled that the Karnataka government's attempt to restore the cancelled 2011 recruitment through the 2022 Validation Act was unconstitutional.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>2022 Validation Act Declared Unconstitutional:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Supreme Court struck down the <\/span><b>Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. It held that the law was meant to <\/span><b>undo earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> that upheld the cancellation.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Legislature Cannot Directly Overturn Court Judgments:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> A legislature may pass <\/span><b>retrospective laws to correct the legal basis<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> of a judgment. It <\/span><b>cannot declare a final judgment ineffective<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> without changing the <\/span><b>underlying legal circumstances<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Cancellation Upheld:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The 2011 process was badly affected by <\/span><b>corruption, nepotism and manipulation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. As this damaged the <\/span><b>credibility of the entire exam<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, there was <\/span><b>no justification for restoring<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> it.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Appointments Under the 2022 Act Invalidated:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Appointments made under the <\/span><b>unconstitutional law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> could not continue, even for candidates <\/span><b>not personally involved in wrongdoing<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Fresh Recruitment Ordered:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The government must announce <\/span><b>fresh recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> for the vacant <\/span><b>Group A and B posts<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> under the <\/span><b>current recruitment rules<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The old process was not restarted, as nearly <\/span><b>15 years<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> had passed.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>One-Time Age Relaxation:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Relief was given to <\/span><b>appointed candidates not found tainted<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the <\/span><b>six appellants<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>petitioners in pending KAT proceedings<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, so they can take part in the fresh recruitment.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>No Retrospective Seniority or Back Wages:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Those selected will get <\/span><b>seniority only from the date of fresh appointment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, with <\/span><b>no salary arrears<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>no earlier effective date<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Protection of Pension Benefits:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Candidates serving under the invalidated appointments who are <\/span><b>selected again<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> will have their <\/span><b>earlier service counted<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> for <\/span><b>pension and retirement benefits<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Criticism of the Government:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Court criticised the state\u2019s <\/span><b>repeated changes of stand<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, which caused <\/span><b>unnecessary hardship<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and prolonged the dispute for almost <\/span><b>15 years<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><b>Constitutional Provisions Involved in the Karnataka Recruitment Case<\/b><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The following constitutional provisions and principles are relevant to the case. The main basis of the judgment was the constitutional limitation on legislation that attempts to nullify final court decisions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/article-14-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Article 14<\/b><\/a><b>:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> It guarantees <\/span><b>equality before the law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>equal protection of the laws<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. In recruitment, it supports <\/span><b>fair and non-arbitrary selection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. A process hit by <\/span><b>corruption or favouritism<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> undermines <\/span><b>equal treatment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> of candidates.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/article-16-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Article 16<\/b><\/a><b>:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> It ensures <\/span><b>equal opportunity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> in <\/span><b>public employment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The Karnataka case shows why <\/span><b>transparent exams, impartial evaluation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>merit-based selection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> matter.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Article 309:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> It lets the <\/span><b>appropriate legislature<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> regulate <\/span><b>recruitment and service conditions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> of public employees, <\/span><b>subject to the Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. This power cannot be used to <\/span><b>ignore constitutional limits<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> or <\/span><b>directly invalidate binding judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Article 320:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> It covers the functions of the <\/span><b>Union and State Public Service Commissions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, including <\/span><b>exams for government appointments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The case stresses the need for commissions to keep <\/span><b>selection procedures fair and credible<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Article 141:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The law declared by the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/supreme-court-of-india\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Supreme Court<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> is <\/span><b>binding on all courts in India<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The case reinforces that <\/span><b>legislatures cannot set aside final judgments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> simply by passing a law.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Article 144:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> All <\/span><b>civil and judicial authorities<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> must <\/span><b>act in aid of the Supreme Court<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. It reflects the duty of public authorities to <\/span><b>respect and implement the Court's decisions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/separation-of-powers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Separation of Powers<\/b><\/a><b>:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Constitution divides power among the <\/span><b>legislature, executive and judiciary<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The Court stressed that the legislature <\/span><b>cannot exercise judicial power<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> by overturning final judgments <\/span><b>without removing their legal basis<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/rule-of-law\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Rule of Law<\/b><\/a><b> and <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/judicial-review\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>Judicial Review<\/b><\/a><b>:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Government actions and laws must follow the <\/span><b>Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. <\/span><b>Judicial review<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> prevents <\/span><b>misuse of legislative power<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and protects the <\/span><b>integrity of public institutions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><b>Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on Government Recruitment<\/b><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Supreme Court ruling on the Karnataka Recruitment Case has important implications for recruitment authorities, state governments, public service commissions and candidates preparing for government examinations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Greater Accountability of Recruitment Bodies:<\/b> <b>Public Service Commissions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> must ensure <\/span><b>transparency<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> in <\/span><b>exams, interviews, evaluation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>merit lists<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The judgment shows the serious consequences when a selection process loses its <\/span><b>integrity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Stronger Action Against Irregularities:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> It supports <\/span><b>cancelling recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> where widespread <\/span><b>corruption<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> makes the selection unreliable. It also shows that <\/span><b>no individual wrongdoing by every selected candidate<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> does not make an <\/span><b>invalid process<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> legally acceptable.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Restrictions on Legislative Interference:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> States cannot pass new laws to <\/span><b>restore recruitments<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> already <\/span><b>invalidated by final court decisions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. Any <\/span><b>validating law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> must stay within <\/span><b>constitutional limits<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and address the <\/span><b>legal basis<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> of the earlier judgment.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Fresh Opportunities for Eligible Candidates:<\/b> <b>Fresh recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> lets eligible applicants compete under the <\/span><b>existing rules<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The <\/span><b>one-time age relaxation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> gives affected candidates another chance to enter <\/span><b>government service<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Consequences for Existing Appointees:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Candidates appointed under the <\/span><b>2022 Act<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> cannot keep their posts <\/span><b>on the strength of that law<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. They may compete in the <\/span><b>fresh recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, and those already serving get <\/span><b>limited protection for pension and retirement benefits<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> if selected again.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Importance of Timely Recruitment Decisions:<\/b> <b>Prolonged litigation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>changing administrative decisions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> affected thousands of candidates. Recruitment authorities need <\/span><b>effective complaint mechanisms, prompt investigations<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>timely decisions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Need for Better Examination Monitoring:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Allegations of <\/span><b>manipulated marks and records<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> show the need for <\/span><b>secure recordkeeping, transparent evaluation, monitored interviews<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>effective investigation of complaints<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Wider Implications for Public Employment:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The judgment guides future disputes over <\/span><b>cancelled recruitments, retrospective validation laws<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>claims by selected candidates<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. <\/span><b>Constitutional principles, fair competition<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and <\/span><b>integrity of public recruitment<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> must come before saving an <\/span><b>invalid selection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court Karnataka Recruitment Case 2026 verdict strikes down the 2022 Validation Act. Know the 2011 KPSC recruitment controversy and fresh recruitment order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":27248,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1872],"tags":[1896],"class_list":{"0":"post-27286","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-general-studies","8":"tag-supreme-court-karnataka-recruitment-case"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27286"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27288,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27286\/revisions\/27288"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramias.com\/upsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}