SRINAGAR, FEB 09: The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the courts are not powerless to enter into the domain of experts to prevent gross arbitrariness, discrimination or favouritism.
“We are afraid …Courts have the power to enter the arena of experts which has all alone 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 bench of M. S. Latif (Member (Judicial)) and Prasant Kumar (Member (Administrative)) said while hearing an Original Application with regard to a selection matter by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (PSC).
The Bench observed that a detailed order was passed by it on December 5 last wherein the authorities concerned were directed to file their detailed response and the Secretary/Controller of examination, PSC was asked to explain as to whether there is any rule which permits them to review earlier notification following receiving of the notifications.
The Secretary PSC in his response averred that it was in view of the representations received that a sympathetic stance was taken up which compelled the Commission to re-refer the concerns so raised to the experts once again for scrutiny.
However, the counsel representing the petitioner said that there is no provision in the Business Rules of the PSC or in the Rules for Conduct of Examinations that there can be a review after review.
“Perusal of the relief clause of the OA reads that the petitioners have sought for quashment of the preliminary examinations held on 15-10-2023 issued vide notification no. 12- PSC DR of 2023 dated 13-04-2023 and in the alternative has sought for a direction to declare the petitioners to have qualified the preliminary examinations as the applicants have correctly marked the questions whose answer key has been changed by changing these answers from correct to incorrect and has also sought for allowing the applicants to sit in the written and viva voce examination,” the Bench said.
Counsel for PSC said that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have arrayed the affected persons as party respondents in the OA as he seeks for quashment of the whole list.
The counsel further submitted that there are 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 their absence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
“Learned counsel for the petitioner in essence seeks correction of the answer key as circulated by the PSC and submits that the PSC have wrongly decided this objection of the petitioners and submits that his assertion in support of the answer is supported by cogent material which has been taken care of the by the PSC experts,” the bench said, adding, “We are afraid if Courts have the power to enter the arena of experts which has all alone 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.” that as it may, the Bench directed the counsel for the parties to advance their arguments on these two points whether the absence of all those who would be affected by such a relief renders the original application as liable to be dismissed and whether Courts have the power to enter into the arena and domain of the experts in such matters.
