2023 JKAS Prelims | CAT raises eyebrows, demands rule clarification

Srinagar, Feb 9: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Srinagar has asked the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JK PSC) to inform if its rules permitted it to have again constituted a panel of experts to re-examine the answer key of the preliminary examination of J&K Administrative Service (JKAS) when the key was based on expert opinion.

Fifty aggrieved candidates have approached the CAT with a plea that the PSC’s notification dated November 18, 2023, related to a revised answer key was illegal as an answer key based on an expert opinion had already been notified by the commission.

Advocate M Ashraf Wani representing the petitioners submitted that there was no provision in the Business Rules of the PSC or the Rules for Conduct of Examinations that there could be a review of the final answer key.

He said that the only option left for the commission was to re-conduct the examination.

Wani referred to sub-rule E of Rule 10 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022, that “the position of the team of experts should be final and binding upon all the stakeholders”.

“Once, vide notification dated October 27, 2023, the experts had given their opinion, there was no occasion for the respondent Public Service Commission to have yet again issued notification dated November 18, 2023,” he said.

The PSC’s standing counsel Shah Aamir averred that it was given the representations received that a stance was taken up which made the commission re-refer the concerns so raised to the experts once again for scrutiny.

He submitted that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have arrayed the affected persons as party respondents as he sought scrapping of the entire list.

“It is as many as 2266 aspirants who have made it to the second round, as such all those candidates who would be affected by such a relief deserved to be arrayed as party respondents, and in absence, this petition deserves to be dismissed, “ he said.

The issue before the tribunal is whether PSC in keeping with its examination rules was competent to constitute an expert committee to review the answer key which was already examined by the expert committee.

“We are afraid if courts have the power to enter the arena of experts which has all along been left to the domain of the experts as courts are not experts in this field, however, at the same time courts are not powerless to interfere where there is gross apparent arbitrariness, discrimination or favouritism,” a division bench of M S Latif Member (J) and Prasant Kumar (A) said in its order.

The tribunal directed the counsel for parties to advance their arguments on two points, whether the absence of all those who would be affected by any relief renders O A (petition) liable to be dismissed and whether courts have the power to enter into the arena and domain of the experts in such matters.

In the meanwhile, the court directed the PSC’s counsel to file his detailed affidavit explaining as to whether there is any rule vis-à-vis re-examining of the answer key by an expert panel as mentioned by the commission in its reply affidavit filed.

In their plea, the petitioners challenged the preliminary examination held by the PSC on October 15 last year under notification dated April 13, 2023, saying that they had qualified the preliminary examination, but were ousted by the revised key.

They also seek a direction for cancellation of the examination or that they are allowed to appear in the written and viva-voce examination.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure for conducting the written examination and the redressal mechanism is contained in Rule 10 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022.

He referred to the notification dated October 27, 2023, issued by the commission whereby the team of experts recommended changes in the provisional official answer key in respect of GS Paper-I and GS Paper-II.

“Once, vide notification dated October 27, 2023, the experts had given their opinion, there was no occasion for the respondent Public Service Commission to have yet again issued notification dated November 18, 2023.”