Back
2019 Supreme(J&K) 89
IN THE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, SANJEEV KUMAR, JJ.
Court of its own motion - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. - Respondents
PIL No.29 of 2018, IA Nos.02 of 2018, 01, 03 of 2019
Decided on : 30-01-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Z.A. Shah, Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate, for PSC
For the Intervener :Mr. Javid Iqbal, Advocate, Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suhail Rashid, Mr. N.A. Baba, Sheikh Umar Farooq and Mian Tufail, Advocates
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Argument - Public Service Commission - PIL was commenced pursuant to order dated representation dated applicants alleging irregularities on account of alleged data corruption and huge human error in digital marking adopted for evaluation of answer scripts in Combined Competitive Mains Examination by Public Service Commission - Notice of PIL was accepted by appearing for J&K Public Service Commission hereinafter Commission - He was directed to file detailed counter affidavit meeting objections pointed out by aggrieved candidates and show cause why PIL be not admitted to hearing - Court also directed that meanwhile till next date of hearing there shall be stay of further selection process and case was posted for today – Held, Argument by appellants against entertaining ground that PIL in service matter is not maintainable - This Court is of opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention - It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is service matter - Three judge Bench of this Court that PIL is not maintainable in service matters - This Court speaking through explained purpose of administrative tribunals created Article backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court’s - If public interest litigations at instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by Administrative Tribunal very object of speedy disposal service matters would get defeated - Same reasoning applies here as Public Interest Litigation has been filed when entire dispute relates to selection and appointment - Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Assn this Court held that in service matters only non appointees can assail legality of appointment procedure - View was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dataram Nathalie Thaw are State of Maharashtra by pointing out that despite decision in supra PILs in service matters continue unabated - This Court opined that High Courts should throw out such petitions in view of decision – Order accordingly
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.
This PIL was commenced pursuant to order dated 21.12.2018 on the representation dated 17.12.2018 of 83 applicants alleging irregularities on account of alleged data corruption and huge human error in the digital marking adopted for evaluation of answer scripts in the Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination held by the J&K Public Service Commission from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018.
2. Notice of the PIL was accepted by Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, appearing for J&K Public Service Commission (hereinafter, the Commission). He was directed to file detailed counter affidavit meeting the objections pointed out by the aggrieved candidates and show cause why the PIL be not admitted to hearing. The Court also directed that meanwhile, till next date of hearing, there shall be stay of further selection process and the case was posted for today.
3. It may be mentioned here that against the aforesaid order, the Commission filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1493/2019 before the Supreme Court titled J&K Public Service Commission v. The Registrar, Jammu and Kashmir High Court, and anr. The Supreme Court on 21.01.2019, while issuing notice, directed that selection process can be completed and no appointment will be made. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the High Court would be free to decide the PIL on merits on the date fixed.
4. The Commission has filed a detailed reply in which it has not only furnished detailed information seeking to meet the points raised by the aggrieved persons who had filed the representation dated 17.12.2018, but has also taken preliminary objections to the maintainability of the PIL, citing certain judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts to the effect that public interest litigation cannot be entertained in service matters.
5. It is worthwhile mentioning here that some candidates have filed three IAs seeking to intervene in this PIL. Some of these candidates are those who have been declared successful in the Mains Examination and some are those who have failed therein. For instance, IA no.02/2018 has been filed by seven candidates. They are stated to have qualified the Mains Examination, the result whereof was declared by the Commission vide notification no.PSC/Exam/80/2018 dated 04.12.2018. They have prayed for impleadment as party respondents in the PIL. Similarly, IA No.01/2019 has been filed by 27 candidates, who are stated to have passed the mains examination and have now to be interviewed by the PSC. It is their case that because of the order passed by the Court on 21.12.2018 the PSC has stayed further selection process. These interveners have sought their impleadment as respondents in the PIL and vacation of the interim direction dated 21.12.2018 which, according to them, is greatly prejudicing their interests. IA no.03/2019 has been filed by two candidates who are aggrieved of the methodology/procedure of Digital Evaluation/On Screen Marking (DE/OSM) introduced and adopted by the PSC, and are seeking to intervene in the PIL.
6. We heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.
7. Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the Commission and, M/s Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, learned Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Tubail, learned Advocate, representing the applicants in IA Nos.02/2018 and 01/2019 during the course of hearing today prayed for closure of the PIL on the ground that the same is not maintainable. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 707 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in PIL no.14/2018, entitled People’s Welfare Society v. Chancellor University of Jammu, decided on 28.11.2018.
8. Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned Court Counsel, submitted that in terms of the Supreme Court order dated 21.01.2018 this Court is required to decide the PIL on merits. While Mr. R. A. Jan, learned counsel, representing the aggrieved candidates submitted that the Court on consid
