news details |
|
|
| DB directs PSC to declare petitioner’s result | | | JAMMU|SEP-05- Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu Wing comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice YP Nargotra in an appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment of single Judge dated March 13, 2007 whereby the Single Judge dismissed the petition, has set-aside the said judgment and directed Public Service Commission to declare the result of appellant’s Constitution paper..
This judgment was passed in a LPA filed by one Mohd Sadiq Malik in which the appellant aggrieved by the judgment of single judge passed on March 13, 2007 submitted that appellant qualified the departmental examination of Naib-Tehsildar in the year 1995, having become eligible to appear in departmental examination of the J&K Revenue Service (executive). He submitted his application form for appearing in the said examination, in the first attempt the year 1998 he cleared some papers out of total 8 papers which were required to be passed. Again vide notification No 30-PSC of 2004 June, 2004, the appellant submitted his application form for permit him in paper 1 and 8 and he was allowed to sit in the examination and appeared in paper 6 and 8 and did not appear in paper 1. When the result was declared he was shown absent in paper whereas the result of paper 6 (constitution) was not declared.
DB, after hearing Adv HA Siddiqui appearing for the appellant and Sr. Adv DC Raina along with Adv V Singh appearing for the PSC, observed that it is fact the paper No 1 pertains to Revenue Law, in the said paper, the appellant has not appeared. He has appeared in paper 6 and 8, the dispute is only with regard to paper No 6, the result of which stands withheld on the ground that the appellant has not applied for appearing in the said paper and instant has applied for paper No 1. The further fact is that the respondents have issued an admit-card in favour of the appellant to sit in paper No 6 also. During the hearing when it was pointed out to the Sr. Counsel appearing for the PSC whether the commission can allow anyone to sit in the examination simply on the basis of the admit card, he very fairly and candidly made a statement that when the answer-sheets are issued, the number of candidates are counted who have applied for appearing in the examination and as to how many question papers are distributed is also counted and there was data-wise statement of the candidates who are to appear in the paper. DB further observed that the appellant had already made a representation to the authority concerned in order to rectify the mistake regarding mentioning of paper 1 instead of paper 6 and to allow the appellant in paper No 6. The respondent authorities, however, did not dispose of the representation of appellant and instead issued an admit card in his favour and allowed him to sit in Paper No 6. Therefore, the mistake, if any, is also on the part of PSC. The appellant in the present case has not appeared in the examination by committing any fraud or misrepresentation, he was fair enough to represent before the authorities concerned that a mistake has been committed by him which may be rectified, which was not done by the said authority. Therefore when a candidate has not appeared in the examination by fraud or misrepresentation and has not used any unfair means to sit in the examination, than his result cannot be withheld. With these observations DB allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment of single judge passed on March 13, 2007. Division Bench directed PSC to declare the result of the appellant for paper No 6. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
