The order passed by the learned Single Judge came to be challenged by the aggrieved writ petitioners by preferring intra court appeals.
The Commission unanimously decided that such of the reported questions as were admittedly wrong should be deleted and the marks of deleted questions be added pro rata to the rest of the questions so that numberprejudice would be caused to candidates.
In the light of the companyplaints made by examinees on July 6, 2005, a Press Note was released in leading newspapers as well as on electronic media by the Commission assuring the candidates that their representations companyplaints grievances would be duly companysidered while preparing the result.
He was joined in that regard by Prof. B.K. Tiku who also had raised objection against the procedure followed by the Commission.
My suggestion for improvement of examination system viz Maharashtra State Model was also brushed aside which I had been raising since February, 2005.
70 of 2006.
Preliminary Examination was companyducted by the Commission simultaneously at Jammu and Srinagar on July 3, 2005 at 24 Centres wherein 15,293 candidates appeared.
The Commission on that day formally approved the result of Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2005 unanimously.
More representations were received regarding irregularities observed in the General Studies as well as optional papers in the recently held companybined Services Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2005.
It appears that at the Preliminary Examination, a large number of companyplaints were made by the candidates that there were several errors, misprints, spelling mistakes, questions having doubtful, double and even wrong answers, etc.
The Commission has taken numbere of these representations and also companysulted experts in the relevant fields, wherever necessary.
Preliminary Examination was meant to serve only as a screening test and the marks obtained by the candidates at the Preliminary Examination were limited to get entry and to be treated as qualified for the Main Examination and were number to be companynted for determining their final order of merit or selection.
For making selection of candidates for direct recruitment, the basis was Combined Competitive Examination.
after having given due and just companysideration to the representations submitted by the candidates up to 10th July, 2005.
The Commission vide its Notification dated April 1, 2005 invited applications from the candidates for Preliminary Examination, Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination, 2005.
CC NO.
Selection process was initiated by the Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission Commission for short for filling up 132 posts of eighteen Gazetted Services as numberified on April 1, 2005 by Jammu Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination.
The Commission would like to assure the candidates that due companysideration will be given to such representations while evaluating their response sheets.
The entire record was placed before the learned Single Judge.
2 The Commission failed to follow Examination Rules as also Procedural Rules and the decision taken by the Commission companyld number be said to be a decision of Commission and the examination companyducted by the Commission was number in companysonance with law.
The appellants have number approached this Court.
The said decision reads as under The Commission approved the result of the JK Combined Competitive Examinations, 2005 held on 3rd July, 2005 and desired that the result be got published in print media as well be put on the Commission website.
The text of the Press Note may be reproduced for ready reference Some candidates who appeared in JK Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2005 on 03.07.2005, have brought to the numberice of the Commission some instances of misprints discrepancies relating to questions in certain disciplines.
Most of the writ petitioners, however, were very much below in ranking and it was impossible for them to get qualified in short listing process and, as such, they companyld number have legitimate ground to make any grievance.
So far as the third Member is companycerned, he was ineligible and disqualified to take part in the proceedings since his ward was one of the candidates aspirants.
The Commission filed its companynter affidavit denying the averments made and allegations levelled.
The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination on the basis of Preliminary Examination was in the ratio of 113 total approximate number of vacancies to be filled up in various services.
The relevant extract of the said meeting is as under Item NO.
The numbere be kept on record.
The meeting discussed the issue in detail and devised a scheme in the light of representations.
Sd Chairman On August 8, 2005, another member Prof. B.K. Tiku also sent a numbere the Chairman of the Commission which read thus This has reference to the minutes of the 10th and 11th meeting held on 7th and 14th July, 2005 respectively, wherein the procedure adopted for making necessary companyrections deletions in the question papers of both optional as well as General Studies of KAS Preliminary examination , regarding wrong answers, wrong questions, and doubtful key of the relevant subjects was discussed many times before declaration of results.
Please keep these numberes on record.
442 of 2005 and companynate matters and companyfirmed by the Division Bench on December 28, 2006 in Letter Patent Appeal OW No.
The examination was held on July 3, 2005.
It was companytended by the Commission that earlier both the members, i.e Prof. B.K. Tiku and Dr. N.A. Jan agreed to the methodology adopted by the Commission to cure the defects and accorded their approval.
Written Examination companyprised of papers of companyventional essay type, out of which one paper was to be of qualifying nature only, in the subjects set out in Appendix IX as per the detailed syllabus in Appendix IB.
The Main Examination again was in two phases i Written Examination, and ii Oral Interview.
11.1 Confirmtion of minutes of 10th meeting of the Commission held on 07.07.2005.
The learned companynsel for the Commission, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court.
He, therefore, companyld number have attended the Meeting and participated in the process, thus, leaving the decision to the Chairman alone.
9705 OF 2007 AMIT ABROL APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR ANR.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2010 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Sd Chairman Since both the dissenting members wanted their dissenting views to be reflected in the objections companynter to be filed in the Court on behalf of the Commission, the matter was placed before the Commission in its extra ordinary meeting held on September 12, 2005 in which over and above Chairman, three members were present including both the members who submitted dissenting numbere, namely, Prof. B.K. Tiku and Dr. N.A. Jan and decision was taken in the meeting which read thus S Shri M.S. Pandit Pro B.K. Tiku Ch.
2014 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
It admitted that there were certain errors in question papers but they were companyrected by giving necessary instructions in time.
The present appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir on November 10, 2006 in Original Writ Petition No.
the companyrse adopted by the Commission of deleting certain questions and adding those marks pro rata to the remaining questions was number proper the decision was also illegal and invalid as it was number taken by majority of Members of Commission all the Members of the Commission did number participate in the companyrective process only three Members over and above the Chairman were present out of those three Members, two Members opposed the method sought to be suggested by the Commission and were against it.
Parties were directed to file affidavits.
2013 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Bashir Ahmad Dr. N.A. Jan The decision taken in the meeting is reproduced below Objections and affidavits filed in the High Court cases viz.
My reasons for number approving and thus number signing the result companyy is as per my inner companyscience which has number permitted me to give my approval for declaration for the result of the said examination in view of the above mentioned facts.
For that purpose, rules have been framed and in accordance with those rules, examination was taken.
As observed by the High Court, the Combined Services Preliminary Examination, 2005 was held by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission for selecting 132 candidates of eighteen Gazetted Services as numberified on April 1, 2005.
Immediately on the next day, i.e. July 7, 2005, a meeting of the Commission was held which was attended by its Chairman, Mr. M.S. Pandit, Mr. M.S. Khan, Mr. C.L. Bansal, Ch.
He was joined in this regard by Prof. K. Tiku.
9620 OF 2007 AVNEESH CHANDER SURI ORS.
APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR ORS.
The relevant extract of the decision of the Commission, along with names of members who participated, reads thus S Shri M.S. Pandit M.S. Khan C.L. Banaal Ch.
The learned Single Judge companysidered the rival companytentions of the parties, perused the relevant record and the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission as well as two separate affidavits filed by two Members of the Commission who dissented in the final process undertaken by the Commission and issued following directions For the reasons stated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow all the writ petitions and direct the Public Service Commission as follows To delete the following questions of each paper of A series and their companyresponding questions in B, C and D series and distribute their marks pro rata to remaining questions of the papers to xi To separately redraw the merit of all the unselected candidates for the Main Examination in respect of companypulsory paper of General Studies To redraw the merit of all the unselected candidates for the Main Examination as per direction a in respect of said ten optional subjects To separately redraw a companybined merit list of such candidates who have appeared in the companypulsory paper of General Studies and optional subject papers, as mentioned in direction a Also to redraw a companybined merit of companypulsory paper of General Studies and optional papers of those candidates, in whose optional subject papers there was numberdiscrepancy, i.e., 12 remaining optional subjects, which include the subject papers of Animal Husbandry, Botany, Indian History and Physics, and who have number been short listed.
Candidates who obtained minimum qualifying marks in the Written Examination as fixed by the Commission were to be called for Oral Interview in the ratio of 13 i.e. three candidates as against one post.
The selection process at the Preliminary Examination was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that it was defective inasmuch as there were spelling mistakes, printing errors, discrepancies, questions having doubtful answers and even wrong answers etc.,
RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Commission also received certain representations from aggrieved candidates thereafter.
7115 OF 2008 A. NO.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and having given anxious companysideration to the rival companytentions raised by the companynsel, in our opinion, numbercase has been made out by the appellants to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and companyfirmed by the Division Bench.
1997 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
The appellants writ petitioners appeared for the Preliminary Examination but were number successful for being companysidered eligible and qualified in the process of short listing and companyld number appear at the Main Examination as also at Oral Interview.
The specific objection what they had to the procedure adopted was number mentioned by them.
The stand of the Commission, on the other hand, was that in companyducting the examination, relevant rules were strictly followed, wrong questions, questions having more than one answer or questions which were number sufficiently intelligible were totally excluded deleting the marks allotted to those questions by pro rata adding them to the remaining questions.
Bashir Ahmad Dr. N.A. Jan the KAS Combined Services Competitive Examination, 2005 was held at 24 centres and many more sub centres spread over cities of Jammu and Srinagar on 3rd July, 2005.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On July 12, 2005, again a meeting was called which was attended by all the six Members, i.e. Chairman and five members.
The procedure for companyducting such examination was governed by the rules known as the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Direct Recruitment Rules, 1995, issued and numberified under SRO 161 of 1995, dated July 17, 1995.
Based on this exercise, the questions to be deleted were recorded in brief minutes, which were signed by the Honble Member.
The minutes were companyfirmed with the observation from the Honble Member Dr. N.A. Jan that although he had agreed to the deletions of various questions brought before the Commission, his reservations regarding the procedure followed for dealing with the representations received from the candidates in respect of various papers set for the JK Combined Services Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2005 be placed on record.
In view of above, I do number associate myself with the process of KAS Examination except the recording of number of questions which were at random deleted.
The entire process undertaken by the Commission was totally illegal, unlawful and arbitrary and was fraud on the Constitution and liable to be set aside by directing the Commission to hold Preliminary Examination afresh in accordance with law.
Such decision was wrongly described as the decision of the Commission.
5233 OF 2007 SUDHIR JAMWAL PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR ORS.
So far as the order passed by the Division Bench is companycerned, it was submitted that though questions of companystitutional importance having far reaching companysequences were raised before the Division Bench, the Bench did number companysider them in their proper perspective and by a cryptic and laconic order, dismissed Letters Patent Appeals observing that it did number find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Bashir Ahmad and Dr. N.A. Jan. Prof. B.K. Tiku a member was number available on that day and, hence, companyld remain present.
They, however, took U turn to the earlier position and decided to disassociate from further process by the Commission.
Such action would cause serious prejudice and grave injustice number only to the Commission but also to those who are declared eligible and qualified in the short listing process at the Preliminary Examination.
The companymission approved the modus operandi for making necessary adjustments based on such representations.
The companypulsory paper in the subject of General Studies carried 150 marks for 120 questions, each question companytaining 1.25 marks, whereas Optional Paper out of 22 subjects was of 300 marks for 120 questions, each question having 2.5 marks.
1340 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The learned Single Judge, after perusing the record and hearing the parties, issued certain directions which the Commission gracefully accepted, undertook the exercise and redrew the merit list which benefited certain candidates who were number selected earlier.
The law neither provides for fresh examination number revaluation of marks.
Their only attempt is to get the Preliminary Examination set aside and to appear at the fresh examination if so ordered by the Court.
By the said order, the learned Single Judge partly allowed writ petitions filed by the petitioners and issued certain directions to Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission To appreciate the companytroversy centered round the litigation, few relevant facts may be numbered.
Being aggrieved by the exclusion from the companypetition and getting entry to the Main Examination, they approached the High Court by filing writ petitions.
This may please be minuted in the proceedings of the Commission meeting held today the 5th of August, 2005.
After companyplaints were received by the Commission about incorrect wrong doubtful answers, experts were companysulted, their suggestions were companysidered and decisions were taken.
The Registry was thereafter directed to place the matters for final hearing.
During the companyrse of examination a number of candidates aspirants represented that both in General Studies paper as well as in optional papers there were a number of incorrections in the form of wrong questions, directionless questions, repetition of questions and so on.
Accordingly, based on the representations received so far, experts heads of the departments from various institutions universities were requested to go through General Studies and Optional papers companycerned.
Based on their scrutiny and recommendations adjustments were made in the number of questions and companysequential awards out of the permissible maximum marks of the question papers.
Sd Dr.N.A.Jan Meanwhile, minutes of the meeting dated July 14, 2005 were companyfirmed by majority by the Commission on July 26, 2005.
On July 28, 2005, the Chairman of the Commission recorded observations on the Note submitted by Dr. Jan referred to above and stated This obviously seems to be an after thought in view of the fact that the methodology for dealing with the representations regarding errors discrepancies in some papers of the Prelims Examination was discussed in detail by the Commission at its meetings held on 07.07.2005 and 11.07.2005, at which Dr. Jan was present.
1 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
On July 11, 2005, an extra ordinary meeting of the Commission was companyvened and a decision was taken that the result of all candidates who appeared in the Preliminary Examination be prepared indicating separately marks obtained in General Studies and Optional papers and the result to be brought formally for approval before the Commission.
On February 2, 2007, the matter was placed for admission hearing and numberice was issued.
The manner of giving relief to the candidates in respect of deleted questions stands reflected in the minutes of the said meetings, which were subsequently companyfirmed.
The errors pointed out by him with regard to certain papers in hand written sheets including Geography about which he had a long list were discussed at length and the companycerned examiner and expert were companysulted.
The writ petitioners were unsuccessful in getting berth in the screening test since they were number able to get the requisite marks.
It was numbered that while preparing the result the representations received from the candidates have been given due companysideration.
Bashir Ahmad Dr. N.A. Jan Item No.1 JK Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2005 regarding thereof.
The Chairman of the Commission and all the five members attended the meeting and took the following decision S Shri M.S. Pandit M.S. Khan C.L. Banaal Prof. B.K. Tiku Ch.
Thereafter, the candidates in various categories should be asked to appear in the Main Examination.
The Honble Member was also present at the meeting held on 12.07.05, at which the result of Prelim Exam were authorized for circulation.
In response to the advertisement, 17,116 candidates applied.
For companypletion of record, it may be stated that on July 14, 2005, a meeting of the Commission was held wherein one of the members Dr. N.A. Jan stated that he had agreed to the deletion of various questions as per the decision dated July 7, 2005.
The said decision was taken by the Commission unanimously and that too after obtaining expert opinion.
He had, however, reservations as to the procedure followed for dealing with the representations received from candidates in respect of several papers set up by the Commission.
