JKAS Preliminary Exam 2023 | Reconsider representations, take decision by March 20: CAT directs PSC

Srinagar, Mar 15: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (PSC) to reconsider afresh the representations along with supporting material of the candidates who were aggrieved about the answer key of the preliminary examination of J&K Combined Competitive Examination 2023.

A division bench comprising M S Latif, Member (J), and Prasant Kumar, Member (A), also directed the commission to decide the matter by March 20 positively and also convey it to the candidates.

“This direction is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and should not form a precedent for others to approach the court as it is too late to interfere given the notifications having already been issued by the PSC by which the main examination is to be conducted from March 26, 2024,” the tribunal said. “In case the PSC feels the need, it should be free to avail the advice of any other source.”

However, it said that this order should be subject to the outcome of the main OA 969/2023.

The tribunal said that it passed these directions in the interest of justice given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the reply filed by the PSC wherein it has stated that given the representations received and taking a sympathetic stance towards the concerns of the aspirants, it decided to re-refer the concern so raised to the experts for scrutiny, which though the statute did not permit.

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

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

The aggrieved candidates through their counsel Muhammad Ashraf Wani 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.

They contended that under sub-rule E of Rule 10 of the PSC (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022, “The position of the team of experts should be final and binding upon all the stakeholders.”

“PSC has, ex facie, revised the answer key incorrectly and completely contrary to the authentic and official sources and the initial key announced by the PSC was correct,” the counsel said.

He submitted that the PSC was under statutory obligation to entertain the representations of the applicants and evaluate it based on authentic material in support thereof and as a result, the matter ought to have been placed before the Expert Committee for further evaluation.

The PSC in its reply affidavit said that in pursuance to Rule 10 of the PSC Rules, 2022, as amended from time to time, the provisional answer keys of GS1 and GS2 papers about the preliminary examination were notified on October 15, 2023, for seeking objections from the candidates within three days that was up to October 18, 2023, and the PSC received 165 representations in GS1 paper against 34 questions and 63 representations in GS2 paper against 11 questions.

The PSC’s reply indicated that all these representations were carefully examined and referred to a Committee of Experts in the relevant branch of the subject.

The reply revealed that based on the expert opinion, four questions were deleted from the GS1 paper, four questions were deleted from the GS2 paper, and answer keys in respect of 12 questions from the GS1 paper and three questions from the GS2 paper were revised mostly due to the erroneous key provided or due to typographical errors.

The reply said that after the earlier notification declaring the result of the preliminary examination, several representations were received in the PSC regarding certain purported factual errors in the notified final answer key of the GS1 paper.

The PSC received the representations regarding the questions of the GS1 paper and said, “The commission given the representations received and taking a sympathetic stance towards the concerns of the aspirants, decided to re-refer the concern so raised to the experts once again for scrutiny.”

The PSC said that the experts, after a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised by the candidates, accepted certain inadvertent typographical errors made in the earlier opinion rendered by them for which they expressed their deep regret and communicated the changes required to be made in the final answer key thereof to the PSC.

Shah Amir, counsel representing the PSC, submitted that the PSC had rightly reframed the answer keys and it was by the law and the PSC Rules 2022.

It was said that with the revision of the result and the modification so made, a total of 167 candidates including the applicant (aggrieved candidates) who were earlier declared to have qualified in the main examination as per result notification dated October 27, 2023, were falling below the revised cut off point and were ousted from the revised result.

“When confronted with the situation as to why despite direction as contained in the order of the court dated December 5, 2023, to submit an affidavit as to whether there is any rule which prescribes the mode and method as has been adopted by the PSC, he fairly conceded that he has not submitted the affidavit as required,” the court said.

Relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the tribunal said, “It is the settled position of law that the courts cannot go into the veracity of the answers when the answer papers have been evaluated based on answer key prepared by a body of academic experts.”

The tribunal said that the apex court had held that the courts should refrain from examining the correctness of the answer and answer keys and come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee which prepared such answers or answer keys.

The tribunal held that in keeping with the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Judges are not and cannot be the experts in all fields and the opinion of the experts cannot be supplanted by the court by overstaying its jurisdiction.

“It needs to be demonstrated by a candidate that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it and if there is any exercise conducted by the court, where the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, that will inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the courts,” the court said citing the SC judgment.