9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the viva voce test conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. 2. Allocation of marks by the expert and other members in the viva voce test. 3. Absence of tape-recording of the viva voce test. 4. Petitioners' performance in the viva voce test compared to selected candidates. 5. Alleged bias in the selection of candidates from a particular community. 6. Eligibility of respondents no. 10 and 13 under rule 9 of the rules. 7. Alleged favoritism towards respondent no. 13 due to her relationship with Commission members. 8. Validity of preparing a merit list of 20 candidates for 11 advertised vacancies. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of Viva Voce Test The petitioners challenged the viva voce test conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Commission) for the selection of Munsiffs, alleging that the test was manipulated to favor certain candidates. The court held that the petitioners, having participated in the interview without protest, could not later challenge the process. The court emphasized that the assessment of candidates' merits by the expert committee could not be questioned unless there was evidence of bias or mala fides. Issue 2: Allocation of Marks The petitioners argued that the expert was entitled to award only 60 marks while the other members could award 80 marks, affecting the overall assessment. The court found no factual basis for this contention, noting that all members of the interview committee participated in the assessment as per rule 10(1)(b). Issue 3: Absence of Tape-Recording The petitioners contended that the absence of tape-recording of the viva voce test vitiated the process. The court rejected this contention, stating that rule 10(1)(b) did not require tape-recording. The court referred to the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, where the suggestion for tape-recording was made to ensure transparency but was not a mandatory requirement. Issue 4: Petitioners' Performance The petitioners claimed that they were unfairly given lower marks in the viva voce test despite performing better in the written test. The court held that the assessment of candidates' performance in the viva voce test was within the domain of the expert committee and could not be challenged without evidence of bias or mala fides. Issue 5: Alleged Bias The petitioners alleged that the selection process favored candidates from a particular community. The court found this contention to be based on conjecture and noted that the merit list included candidates from different communities. The court emphasized that the validity of the viva voce test could not be judged solely based on the results unless there was evidence of bias or mala fides. Issue 6: Eligibility of Respondents No. 10 and 13 The petitioners argued that respondents no. 10 and 13 did not meet the eligibility requirement of two years of actual practice at the bar. The court found that both candidates had produced certificates from the District Judge confirming their eligibility. The court held that the Commission was justified in relying on these certificates and did not need to conduct further inquiries. Issue 7: Favoritism Towards Respondent No. 13 The petitioners claimed that respondent no. 13, being related to members of the Commission, was given special treatment. The court rejected this contention, noting that the concerned members had disassociated themselves from the selection process. The court also observed that respondent no. 13's rank in the merit list indicated no undue favoritism. Issue 8: Validity of Merit List for 20 Candidates The petitioners contended that the preparation of a merit list of 20 candidates for 11 advertised vacancies was invalid. The court agreed, stating that the requisition from the government was for 11 vacancies, and the merit list should have been confined to filling these vacancies. The court directed that only 11 vacancies be filled, with 2 reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, and the remaining 9 for general category candidates. The merit list would remain valid for one year from its publication or until the vacancies were filled.
|
