STATE TIMES NEWS
SRINAGAR: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed two petitions challenging KAS selection with costs Rs 50,000.
The petitioners responded to notification No. 2-PSC of 2021 dated 26.02.2021, whereby the Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for J&K Combined Competitive Preliminary Examinations 2021. The scheme of examination comprised of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination for the selection of candidates for main examination; Combined Competitive main examination written & interview and Personality test. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers i.e. GS-I & GS-II. Paper GS-II was in the nature of a qualifying examination, inasmuch as a candidate has to secure a minimum of 33 per cent marks. In regard to the GS-I, the Public Service Commission was given the discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks as it deemed appropriate. According to the counsel for the Public Service Commission, Azhar-ul-Amin, marks obtained in GS-1 would also contribute to determining the merit of a candidate who appeared in the main examination.
The case set up by the petitioners is that they filed representations with the Public Service Commission, stating therein that number of questions/answer keys were wrong and incorrect. The petitioners also placed on record the representations purported to be filed by them with the Public Service Commission. The case set up by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that all 9 questions in GS-1 ought to have been deleted instead of just 4, meaning thereby, that those 5 five questions in regard to which the key was corrected ought to have also been deleted and marks of all 9 questions allotted to the petitioners. Apart from the above, 6 more questions referred to in table C of the petitions ought to have been deleted, as the questions were either vague or incorrect or the options were vague or incorrect.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur after hearing both the sides observed that it was, therefore, urged that having failed to file a representation against any of the questions/answers and the keys in terms of Rule 12A & 12B, the petitioners are now stopped in law to throw a challenge to the process of selection being conducted by Public Service Commission. With a view to verify whether the petitioners had infact filed the representations with the Public Service Commission, as was reflected in the writ petitions, in regard to the questions highlighted in the writ petitions, record was called.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur observed that in present case, in view of the fact that the subject experts have already opined on the 6 questions, which had been highlighted in Table-C and rejected the objections so raised (by the candidates other than the petitioners). “In view of the fact that the petitioners had not raised even a murmur and failed to file any representation in regard to the aforementioned 6 questions, I do not deem it necessary to even venture to determined as to whether the questions so highlighted on the face of it were either vague or the answers/options to those questions were incorrect. Even otherwise, keeping in view the ratio of the judgments referred to herein above, this Court cannot substitute its view for the view expressed by the experts in regard to the questions so highlighted in the Table-C. One of the issues, which was highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that 05 questions in regard to which the answer key was corrected ought to have been infact deleted in terms of Rule 12A(c). However, this argument on the face of it, is unsustainable in view of the fact that the correction of key is a matter which is covered not by Rule 12A but Rule 12B, which envisages filing of a representation in regard to the answer keys within three days from the date of notification of the original key, which is then required to be sent to the Expert Committee, consisting of two experts, based upon whose opinion the Controller of Examination is required to notify the same for evaluation as also information of the examinee. The purpose and intent of the two provisions is quite clear, inasmuch as, under Rule 12A, the wrong question or a wrong answer to the proposed question can directly affect the candidate’s performance in the examination and, therefore, the need to delete that question and the allocation of marks to the individual candidates. As against this, an incorrect answer in the key if corrected does not affect the result of the candidate if the performance of the candidate is evaluated based upon such a corrected key. In my opinion, therefore, the argument that the 05 questions instead of being corrected in the key ought to have been deleted is an argument which is unsustainable and is, accordingly, rejected,” the Court observed. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur while dismissing the petition observed that the petitioners had not come to this Court with clean hands but considering the fact that the petitioners are unemployed and some of them belong to far-flung areas with humble backgrounds and considering the fact that their future may be adversely affected, I propose not to take any serious action against petitioners except imposing cost of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the petitioners collectively, out of which Rs 25,000 shall be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and Rs. 25,000 to be deposited into the account of Public Service Commission within two weeks from the date of passing of this order.