Antriksh Sharma vs Jammu And Kashmir Public Service ... on 17 September, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Antriksh Sharma vs Jammu And Kashmir Public Service ... on 17 September, 2025

1. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge Notice No. PSC/DR/LAW/2025, dated 10.09.2025 issued by respondent-Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "JKPSC") whereby, it has been notified that there shall be negative marking for incorrect answers in the preliminary examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Subordinate Judiciary. Challenge has also thrown to Notification No. 7-PSC (DR-P) of 2025 dated 14.05.2025 whereby, applications have been invited by respondent-JKPSC for 42 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Subordinate Judiciary from the applicants domiciled in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir as also the candidates belonging to Ladakh and Kargil Districts of UT of Ladakh.

2. Heard the petitioner in person and perused record of the case.

2 WP(C) No. 2582/2025

3. The ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice dated 10.09.2025 is that in the previous past, respondent-JKPSC while holding preliminary examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), has not resorted to negative marking for incorrect answers but for the first time, during the present selection process, said methodology has been adopted by the respondents. It has been contended that at the time of issuance of advertisement notice dated 14.05.2025, it was nowhere provided that there shall be negative marking for incorrect answers and once selection process has been set into motion, with the issuance of the advertisement notification dated 14.05.2025, the rules of game could not have been changed by the respondents by notifying a new methodology for marking of answer booklets.

4. The petitioner, in support of his aforesaid contention has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment delivered by High Court of Karnataka in the case titled. Sri Naveen Kumar N. and ors. Vs. M/s Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and ors; Writ Appeal No. 1298/2024 decided on 28.05.2025 and the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and ors; (2025) 2 SCC 1.

5. The petitioner has also challenged advertisement notification dated 14.05.2025 by contending that the said notification is 3 WP(C) No. 2582/2025 violative of Rule 10 (a) of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2022")

6. It has also been contended by the petitioner that a number of representations were made to respondent-JKPSC for postponing the schedule of preliminary examination on account of law & order situation in district Doda and also on account of change of pattern of marking in terms of impugned notice dated 10.09.2025 but these representation was not considered.

7. In relation to the grievance of the petitioner with regard to negative marking it has been contended that methodology for holding the preliminary examination could not have been changed by respondent-JKPSC after the selection process had already commenced with the issuance of impugned notification dated 14.05.2025. It has been contended that because of this change in pattern of marking, the strategy of the candidates for preparation has to undergo change and without giving them sufficient time, it is going to prejudice the interests of the candidates.

8. So far as conduct of examinations by JKPSC is concerned, the same is governed by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022. Rule (2) of the said Rules provides that the said Rule would apply to all examinations conducted by JKPSC. Rule (10) of said Rules which 4 WP(C) No. 2582/2025 relates to OMR based Offline Screening Test/Written Examination (Preliminary)/Written Examination is relevant to the context and the same reads as under:-

"(a) The OMR based offline Screening Test /Written Examination (Preliminary)/ Written Examination will comprise of such number of questions as may be prescribed/decided by the Chairman from time to time of 01 (one) mark each, to be answered in 120 minutes (two hours), on the basis of syllabus approved by the Commission for the test/examination. Each question will be followed by four (a, b, c, d) answer options. The candidate will have to encircle / blacken the option he / she thinks is right / correct on the OMR answer sheet with blue / black ball pen.

(b) There will be negative marking for incorrect answers for all questions as detailed below:-

(i) There are four options for the answer to every question. For each question for which wrong answer has been given by the candidate, one-fourth (0.25) of the marks assigned to that question will be deducted as penalty;

(ii) If the candidate gives more than one answer, it will be treated as a wrong answer even if one of the given answers happens to be correct and there will be same penalty as above for that question;

(iii) If a question is left blank i.e., no answer is given by the candidate, there will be no penalty for that question.

(c) The Provisional Answer Key of the offline Screening Test/ Written Examination 5 WP(C) No. 2582/2025 (Preliminary)/ Written Examination shall be notified and uploaded on the website of the Commission immediately/ as soon as possible after the conduct of Offline Screening Test/ Written Examination (Preliminary)/ Written Examination for inviting objections from the candidates who have taken the test/ examination for which 03 (three) days' time (day of publishing the provisional answer key plus three days up to 05.00 P.M. of the prescribed last date of receipt of objections) shall be given. The objections shall be received on a prescribed format, through offline or online mode, as may be prescribed, along with such fee in the shape of demand draft drawn in favor of Controller of Examinations, J&KPSC, as may be prescribed by the Commission from time to time (refundable in case the objections are upheld). Objection(s) submitted in any other mode will not be entertained.

(d) On receipt of such objections, if it is prima- facie found that: i. the formulation/text of the question(s) is/are admissible to different interpretations because of vagueness; or ii. the question(s) recorded in the paper is/are incomplete; or iii. that all the options recorded vis-à-vis a question are wrong; or iv. that more than two options recorded are correct vis-à-vis a question; or v. that the option notified in the provisional answer key vis-à-vis question is incorrect. The Controller of Examinations shall in that eventuality refer all these objections to a team of Experts constituted with the approval of the Chairman for the purpose. The team shall 6 WP(C) No. 2582/2025 comprise not less than two experts in the subject, and in case the team of the experts confirm that the formulation/ text of the question(s) is/ are admissible to different interpretations because of vagueness or that the question (s) recorded in the paper is/ are incomplete or that all the options recorded vis-à-vis a question are wrong or that more than two options recorded vis-à-vis a question are correct [as indicated in para d (i) to d(iv) above], the concerned question(s) shall be deleted from the paper and the mark(s) allocated thereof shall be individually added to the marks secured by the individual candidates to ensure that the mark(s) allocated for the question paper as a whole remain unchanged.

In case the team of experts confirms that the option notified in the provisional answer key vis-à- vis a question(s) is incorrect [as indicated in para d(v) above] the same shall be corrected and the correct option shall be incorporated in the final/ revised answer key.

(e) The decision of the team of experts shall be final and binding upon all the stake holders.

(f) Based on the decision of Experts, the Controller of Examinations, shall, with the approval of the Chairman, notify the Final/ Revised Answer key, before declaration of the result.

(g) The OMR sheets of the candidates who appeared in the Offline Screening Test/Written Examination (Preliminary)/ Written Examination shall be scanned and evaluated by using the notified Final/ Revised Answer key to prepare category-

wise list of candidates for consideration." 7 WP(C) No. 2582/2025

9. From a perusal of Clause (b) of afore quoted Rule, it is clear that a provision for negative marking for incorrect answers has been made. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) quoted above provides that for each question for which wrong answer has been given by a candidate, one-fourth (0.25) of the marks assigned to that question will be deducted as penalty. Sub-clause (ii) of said Clause provides that if the candidate gives more than one answer, it will be treated as a wrong answer even if one of the given answers happens to be correct and there will be same penalty as above for that question.

10. As already stated, the Rules came into force in the year, 2022 and these rules apply to all examinations that are conducted by JKPSC. Thus, it is not that all of a sudden and without any statutory backing, the respondent-JKPSC has notified adoption of negative marking for incorrect answers. It may be correct that in the previous past, the respondent-JKPSC may not have resorted to negative marking while assessing the marks of candidates for selection to posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) but that does not mean that the respondent-JKPSC cannot resort to such type of marking for all times to come. Rule 10 (b) of Rules of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022 clearly provides for taking resort to negative marking. 8 WP(C) No. 2582/2025

11. It is not a case where the respondent-JKPSC had initially notified that it will not resort to negative marking and after the commencement of selection process, they have changed their stand by notifying adoption of negative marking. At no point in time, the respondent-JKPSC has represented to the candidates that negative marking for incorrect answers will not be resorted to. Even in the absence of impugned notice dated 10.09.2025, it was open to the respondent-JKPSC to adopt negative marking for incorrect answers by taking resort to Rule 10 (b) of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-JKPSC has changed the rules of game after the commencement of selection process is wholly misconceived.

12. The contention of the petitioner that adoption of negative marking for incorrect answers would cause prejudice to the candidates as they were under the impression that negative marking will not be adopted is also misconceived. As already stated there was no representation from the respondent-JKPS to the candidates that negative marking will be resorted to. A candidate appearing in a competitive examination cannot dictate the manner in which marks would be assessed by the examining body as long as the same is fair and rational. The scope of judicial review in competitive examination matters is limited to procedural irregularities. The Courts cannot sit in appeal to test the 9 WP(C) No. 2582/2025 correctness of decision of the examination body nor the Courts could substitute their view for that of the experts on the methodology of marking. Therefore, neither the candidates can question the decision of respondent-JKPSC to resort to negative marking nor can this Court test the correctness of said decision of the respondent-JKPSC, particularly when the said decision applies uniformly to all the candidates.

13. So far as challenge to notification dated 14.05.2025 is concerned, it has not been explained by the petitioner as to how the said notification is violative of Clause (a) of Rule 10 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022. The respondent-JKPSC has along with impugned notification dated 14.05.2025 annexed the syllabus for the examination. It is pertinent to mention here that said syllabus has been formulated by respondent-JKPSC after consultation with the High Court of J&K and Ladakh and the change in the syllabus was necessitated on account of repeal of certain State laws and extension of certain central laws to Union Territory of J&K due to coming into force of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019. The syllabus has been changed by respondent-JKPSC prior to issuance of the notification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that change in syllabus has affected the rights of candidates in any manner is also without any substance. 10 WP(C) No. 2582/2025

14. That takes us to contention of the petitioner that due to certain incidents which have taken place in Doda recently, date of preliminary examination needs to be deferred. The said contention is also without any substance because as of now, the situation has regained normalcy. The examination is going to be held on 21.09.2025 which is still a few days away. Even otherwise, merely because some minor incidents have taken place in a particular part of the Union Territory would not give rise to a cause for deferment of the examination. In any case, it is always open to the respondent-JKPSC to take a call on deferment of examination if the situation warrants so.

15. For all what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. The present petition only appears to be a ploy to somehow seek deferment of examination which would neither be in interest of the candidates nor the same would be in the interests of institution of judiciary, which is facing shortage of judges at all levels.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 17.09.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.09.19 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court