Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In addition to the above reliefs, the petitioners in OWP No. 1413/2017 have prayed that the respondent commission be directed to issue the fresh result of J&K Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2016 in the light of each reserved category.

02. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (J&K Public Service Commission), in its reply, do not dispute the facts vis-à-vis issuance of the Notification for appearing in the Preliminary Examination and the revised result notified vide impugned Notification. The respondents maintain that the question papers had been set by the subject matter experts and enrooted through the independent moderators in each subject to the Commission by the Coordinator and that the answer keys provided by the examiners cannot be accessed by any officer/official of the Commission before its use for generation/preparation of the result by the Controller of Examination. It is averred that Rule 12A of the J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005, envisages a three days' time, from conclusion of the examination, to the candidates to make/file a representation to the Controller of Examination about any issue related to the question papers viz. ambiguity in questions, typing error, more than one option being correct etc., but there is no constraint of time on the Commission to rectify the errors in the questions or answers keys and if it appears at any stage that there is error in any question, including the answer keys, the Commission has power to rectify this error and to hold it other way round would be infraction of the rule of law and would defy even common sense. It is averred that respondent Commission received various representations pertaining to ten subjects regarding the discrepancies in some question and these representations mainly pertained to incorrect options/ vagueness/ wrong options/more than one option being correct/ wrong keys and that all these representations were carefully examined and the gist was referred to a team of the subject experts. It is stated that on the basis of expert opinion total 26 questions in 08 subjects were deleted, but marks were redistributed equally among the rest of the question on pro-rata basis to ensure that over all marks allotted to the question papers remain unchanged and accordingly the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared vide Notification No. PSC/ Exam/2017/22 dated 23rd of April, 2017, in which 6925 candidates (i.e. 25 times the number of vacancies) with the cut off merit at 270.477 Marks (out of 450 Marks) were declared to have qualified for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive Examination (Main) Examination 2016. The respondents maintain that the number of candidates to be allowed to appear in the main examination is fixed under Rule 8 of SRO 387 of 2008 i.e. 1/3 of total number of applicants or 25 times the number of the posts, whichever is less, and immediately after declaration of the result vide aforesaid notification the respondent Commission on various inputs like deputations/representations, the application under the J&K RTI Act 2009 and even some writ petitions filed by some candidates were informed of some incorrectness in Key Answers of some questions. Taking note of the public discourse and keeping the interest of candidates paramount, the respondent Commission states that, vide Notice dated 14.06.2017, it kept the result notified on 23rd of April, 2016 in abeyance and also withdrew the notification dated 9th of May, 2017 along with Notice dated 6th of June, 2017, for inviting applications for the Main Examination, 2016 and, simultaneously, the process for reverification of 23 answer keys was started. It is stated that the respondent Commission approached the Vice Chancellors and the Heads of the reputed Universities and institutions within and outside the State for relooking/revisiting the answer keys by subject matter experts in order to find out the discrepancies in the question papers and after examining the reports from the experts of the reputed universities and institutes, third party reports were also sought to the extent of difference amongst the reports of these experts. As a result of the exercise conducted by the respondent Commission and the reports of the two committees of the respondent Commission each headed by Mr Lal Chand and Mr J.P. Singh, answer key of Series-A was revised and consequent upon rectification of key in Series-A, the rectification of the Keys in Series-B, C and D, was also rectified through computer process. The rectification of answer keys through such processes, according to respondent Commission, forced changes in the result and consequently on the application of the revised key 429 number of candidates earlier declared qualified vide Notification dated 23rd of April, 2017 could not make their grade to the revised cut off merit i.e. 277.275 marks out of the aggregate of 450 marks and an equal number of fresh candidates, made it to the above revised cut off merit and vide Rule 8(2) of SRO 387 of 12008 dated 01.12.2008 only 6925 candidates (25 times the total number of vacancies) were to be declared as qualified in the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016, for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2016, and, therefore, the number is statutorily fixed and cannot be tinkered with and, accordingly, the revised list of candidates was declared vide impugned Notification dated 9th of August, 2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates for mains examination. In sequel to correction of keys and revision of result, the applications of 429 candidates, who could not make it to the revised cut-off merit of 277.275, got rejected being ineligible to be called for Main Examination in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 387 of 2008 read with SRO 190 of 2016. The respondents also aver that initially, vide interim order dated 16th of August, 2017, this Court stayed the impugned notification dated 0th of August, 2017 and, later on, after receiving reply from respondents, disposed of the matter vide order dated 24th of August, 2017, directing respondent Commission to treat writ petitions of writ petitioners as representations and consider the same in accordance with law. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, Notification dated 9th of August, 2017 was restored and, in order to inform the appearing candidates of such revival of Notification dated 9 th of August, 2017, a fresh Notification was issued and since 429 candidates included afresh were to be given opportunity to file their applications and respondent Commission vide notice dated 14th of June, 2017 had kept the result notified on 23rd of April, 2017 for Preliminary Examination, 2016, in abeyance and had also withdrawn the Notification dated 9th of May, 2017, alongwith Notice dated 6th of June, 2017 for inviting the applications for Main Examination, 2016, fresh Notification for clearing decks and notifying the fresh dates for the applications for the Main Examination became imperative, therefore, Notification dated 25 th of August, 2017 was issued, which has again been challenged by the very same candidates through the instant writ petition, claiming a fresh cause of action on the plea that the Notification dated 25th of August, 2017 contains a clause viz. rejection of candidature of petitioners by respondent Commission. Respondents maintain that the premise of the plea of the petitioners that respondent Commission has re-evaluated the answer scripts without there being any such power vested in them is absolutely wrong and that the rectification of the answer keys was made on the basis of opinion of and in consultation with the subject experts. It is claimed that it is absolutely absurd to equate the two processes and that the re- evaluation of answer scripts is altogether a different process than rectification of key answers inasmuch as the two operate in two different circumstances. The conducting of the examination is stated to be governed by SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008 read with J&K PSC (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005 and in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 387 only 1/3rd of total number of candidates, who appeared in the preliminary examination or twenty five times the total number of vacancies to be filled in the various services and the posts, whichever be lower, are eligible to be called for Mains Examination, and therefore, in terms of the said Rule 6925 candidates only i.e. 25 times the total number of vacancies, are eligible to be called for Mains Examination. The impugned notification, according to respondents, comports and is in tandem with the Statute and no deviation from the State, therefore, can be countenanced by law. It is further insisted that by allowing the petitioners to appear in the Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016, over and above statutorily fixed number of the candidates to be shortlisted in terms of Rule 8, would amount to infraction of the said Statue.

03. Heard and considered.

04. The learned counsel representing the petitioners have argued that the respondents are estopped under law to make any rectification into the incorrectness in questions and/ or answer keys on the face of the rule position governing the selection process. They have also contended that the correctness of keys or the rectification of errors in questions amounts to changing the rules of the game midstream and/ or re-evaluation of answer scripts which, according to them, is not in consonance with the rules. Thirdly, it has been contended that the grouse of the petitioners is that by issuance of impugned notifications bearing Nos. PSC/Exam/2017/44 dated 9th of August, 2017 and PSC/Exam/2017/49 dated 25th of August, 2017, the respondents have deprived the petitioners of the right to appear in the Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016, without any authority of law. Fourthly, it has been urged that the number of questions deleted accounted for more than 10 percent and, therefore, the entire examination of the paper(s), where the deletion accounted for more than 10 percent, has to be cancelled. The other line of the argument of the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the process of the rectification of the keys is activated by malafides.