J&K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. HIDAYAT AHMAD MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the requisition made by the respondent No.26 (General Administration Department) for filling up 277 vacancies, that is, 269 in Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service, 02 in J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and 06 in J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service, the appellant vide its notification No.PSC/EXM/2016/52 dated 18.06.2016 invited online applications from the permanent residents of the Jammu and Kashmir State for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016. The examination for the purposes of making selection to the notified posts was provided to be conducted in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (SRO 387 of 2008) read with SRO 190 of 2016 dated 190 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 and J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005. The examination was envisaged to be conducted in two parts:-

(2.) The appellant claims to have approached the Vice Chancellors and heads of the reputed Universities and Institutes within and outside the State for re-looking/revisiting the Model (Key) Answers by subject matter experts in order to find out discrepancies in the question papers and Model (Key) Answers. After undertaking the process for re-verification of 23 answer keys through the aforesaid experts of some reputed Universities and Institutes, the appellant also claims to have sought third party report to the extent of difference of opinion amongst the reports of the Universities. The appellant claims that after the process of re-verification of the Model (Key) Answers and making necessary corrections, revised answer keys were generated. This revision of the answer keys necessitated re-evaluation of the answer scripts of all the candidates. Accordingly, the appellant vide his notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/44 dated 09.08.2017 declared the revised result of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016, as a consequence whereof, the applications of 429 candidates, which include respondent Nos. 1 to 25 who had been shortlisted in the earlier result notification but could not make it in the revised result notification issued on 09.08.2017, got rejected being ineligible to participate in the main examination. It may be pointed out that in the revised result declared by the appellant, the cut-off merit, that is, the merit obtained by the candidate last shortlisted for main examination rose to 277.275 marks, whereas in the earlier result notification the cut-off was 270.477 marks. The writ petitioners, that is, respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein who were among the 429 candidates and could not make it to the main examination due to revision of result of the preliminary examination approached this Court in OWP No.1207/2017. The Writ Court while issuing notice in the aforesaid writ petition also stayed the operation of the impugned notification dated 09.08.2018. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing objections and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2017 and the appellant was directed to treat the writ petition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 25 as representation and consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. It was also provided that the result of consideration shall also be communicated to respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein.

(3.) It appears that without considering the grievance of respondent Nos. 1 to 25, as projected in OWP No.1207/2017, in terms of order of the Writ Court dated 24.08.2017, the appellant came up with a notification being Notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/49 dated 25.08.2017 calling upon the candidates qualified as per revised result notification to fill up their forms for the main examination. In the said notification it was also provided that the candidature of 429 candidates (including respondent Nos. 1 to 25) who had been declared ineligible for participation in the main examination in view of the revised result of the preliminary examination shall be deemed to have been rejected. It is this notification which respondent Nos. 1 to 25 assailed before the Writ Court in OWP No.1332/2017. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing objections wherein the appellant sought to justify the revision of result of the preliminary examination, which the appellant claimed, was necessitated due to errors and discrepancies in the question papers as well as the Model Answer Keys. It was claimed that the whole exercise was undertaken bona fide and to maintain utmost fairness and transparency in the process of examination. Be that as it may, the plea taken by the appellant to justify the revision of result of the preliminary examination did not find favour with the Writ Court and vide judgment impugned dated 30.12.2017 the writ petition was disposed by providing that both set of candidates, figuring in the first list issued by the appellant on 23.04.2017 and those figuring in the revised list issued on 09.08.2017, shall be entitled and allowed to sit and participate in the main examination. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment of the Writ Court and is, therefore, before us in this appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.