Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(J&K) 258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohammad Magrey and Tashi Rabstan, JJ.
Court on its own motion and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. – Respondents
PIL No.29/2018, SWP No.07/2019, SWP No.457/2019 and WP(C) No.2255/2019 Alongwith all connected CMs/IAs/CMPs
Decided on 6.8.2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, & Moksha Kazmi, Advocate, with Mr. A. Hanan, Advocate, as Court counsels, in the PIL
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Advocate with Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate, in SWP No.07/2019
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Sharaf Wani, Advocate, in SWP No.457/2019
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohsin Bhat, Advocate in SWP No.2255/2019
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, also in SWP No.2255/2019
For the Respondent(s):Mr. D. C. Raina, Advocate General, with Mr. F. A. Natnoo, AAG & Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA, for State and PSC
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suhail Rashid Bhat, Advocate, for respondents 4 to 10 in SWP No.07/2019
For the Respondent(s):Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate, for respondents 17 to 22 in SWP No.457/2019
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Arif Sikander Mir, Advocate, for respondents 11 to 15 in SWP No.07/2019 and 12 to 16 in SWP No.457/2019

Important Points
(1) PIL would not lie in service matters.
(2) Once a candidate consciously takes part in a selection process, he is estopped from challenging selection process after he has failed to make grade.
(3) Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking of answer scripts of candidates is valid.

Headnote:
(A) Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 – Rules 4, 9 and 31A – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Once a candidate consciously takes part in a selection process, he is estopped from challenging selection process after he has failed to .make grade and he is deemed to have acquiesced and waived his right to challenge the same. (Paras 64, 65 and 68)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Maintainability – PIL would not lie in service matters – After PIL was commenced, unsuccessful candidates filed regular writ petitions raising their grievances – PIL dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 97 and 98)
Result – Writ Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—The lis involved in these clubbed matters, principally, concerns the discontent of a few of the Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) aspirants, who have failed to make it to the Personality Test / Interview, asserting, among other things, faulty evaluation by Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking of answer scripts of the candidates in the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive (Main) Examination held by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018, introduced and adopted by the Commission, and thereby alleging a prejudice resulting in their non-inclusion in the merit list.

2. We think it unnecessary to describe the specific events and the circumstances which led to the initiation of the suo moto action commencing the aforesaid PIL. But to highlight the grievance of these KAS aspirants, some relevant backdrop facts need a narration. Whether the grievance projected is real or imaginary is the fundamental issue involved, which would be discussed later in this judgment.

3. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter, the Commission) issued notification no.PSC/EXM/2016/52 dated 18.06.2016 inviting online applications from permanent residents of J&K State for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 (hereinafter, Preliminary Examination) initiating the process for selection of candidates to fill up 277 posts of Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service, J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service (hereinafter, KAS) referred to it by the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) vide communication no.GAD(Ser)Genl/87/2014 dated 17.06.2016. In all 47,122 candidates responded to the advertisement notice. The Commission conducted the Preliminary Examination on 19.03.2017 in which, out of 47,122 applicants, 36,681 candidates participated. The result of the Preliminary Examination was notified on 23.04.2017 declaring 6,925 candidates – 25 times the total number of vacancies – as having qualified for the J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination (hereinafter, the Main Examination). Consequent thereto, the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/2017/26 dated 09.05.2017 inviting online applications from the candidates who had been declared to have qualified for admission to the Main Examination. Meanwhile, some representations had been received from candidates in various subjects complaining errors in the question papers. This resulted in issue of notice dated 14.06.2017 by the Commission withdrawing the aforesaid notification dated 09.05.2017. Subsequently, the result of the Preliminary Examination so notified was subjected to a change and the revised result was notified by notification dated 09.08.2017, whereby 429 candidates, who had been declared to have made the grade to participate in the Main Examination, were dropped and an equal number of fresh candidates got included in their place in the list. Thereafter, the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/2017/49 dated 25.08.2017 inviting online applications from the candidates who had been declared to have qualified for admission to the Main Examination vide the notification dated 09.08.2017. The last date for receipt/submission of such application forms was notified to be 15.09.2017. Subsequently, in terms of notification dated 06.10.2017, the Main Examination was initially scheduled to be conducted with effect from 07.11.2017 but, by a subsequent notice dated 25.10.2017, it was postponed. However, by another notification dated 07.11.2017, it was notified to be conducted with effect from 15.02.2018 and it was, in fact, partly conducted.

4. Meanwhile, the candidates who figured in the original result of the Preliminary Examination, but were not included in the revised result declared by the Commission, filed writ petition, OWP no.1332/2017, challenging the aforesaid notification dated 09.08.2017, whereby the Commission issued t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(J&K) 258

Important Points(1) PIL would not lie in service matters.(2) Once a candidate consciously takes part in a selection process, he is estopped from challenging selection process after he has failed to make grade.(3) Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking of answer scripts of candidates is valid.

Cases Referred (18)

Important Points
(1) PIL would not lie in service matters.
(2) Once a candidate consciously takes part in a selection process, he is estopped from challenging selection process after he has failed to make grade.
(3) Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking of answer scripts of candidates is valid.