news details |
|
|
| HC reserves verdict on KAS selection | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Jan 28: High Court today reserved its verdict on a suo-motto petition regarding Kashmir Administrative Service examination 2016, a week after apex court of the country allowed the J&K Public service Commission to carry out the process but without making any appointments.
A division bench of the court comprising Justices Ali Mohammad Magray and Sanjeev Kumar reserved orders heard the counsel for J&K PSC and counsel for dropped out candidates. The J&KPSC among others had maintained that the PIL was not maintainable.
Last week, the Supreme Court allowed the J&K PSC to carry out further selection process in the Kashmir Administrative Service examination 2016 but barred the recruitment agency from making the appointments.
"As an interim order, the selection process can be completed but no appointment will be made," said a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna after hearing the counsel for the J&K PSC and perusing the relevant material. The J&K PSC had challenged the state high court's order before the apex court.
While the Supreme Court issued a notice to the respondents, it, however, made it clear that the high court would be free to decide the suo-motu Public Interest Litigation on merits. The high court had on December 21 last year stayed the selection process of Kashmir Administrative Service examination 2016 after hearing a group of aggrieved candidates.
The Public Service Commission had last month declared the result of the combined competitive (mains) examination held from July 24 to August 8 this year. Out of 6427 candidates who had appeared in the examination, 963 were declared to have qualified for the personality test and viva-voice.
The high court issued a notice to the PSC and asked it to file a detailed counter-affidavit to the objections raised by the aggrieved candidates. The state's premier recruitment body was also directed to explain why the petition shouldn't be admitted. The PSC, the candidates alleged, has resorted to "arbitrary scaling and moderation which wasn't provided in the notification when the posts were advertised". The aggrieved candidates also placed before the court a representation dated 17 December last year with signatures of 83 applicants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
