Comparing Evaluation Methods Of J&K Public Service Commission With UPSC Lies Beyond Domain Of Judicial Review: High Court
In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that determining the effectiveness of evaluation methods used in competitive examinations, such as those by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JK PSC), compared to those by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), is a matter best left to experts.A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Sanjay...
In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that determining the effectiveness of evaluation methods used in competitive examinations, such as those by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JK PSC), compared to those by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), is a matter best left to experts.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Sanjay Dhar underscored that courts and tribunals lack the technical expertise required to make such assessments, asserting that these decisions should remain within the purview of qualified professionals rather than judicial authorities.
Background of the Case:
The petition was brought by Zaka Chowdhary and Saqlain Mujtaba, candidates who participated in the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Civil Services Examination (Main), 2023.
After failing the main examination, the petitioners sought intervention from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, requesting to participate in the Personality Test. When their applications were either rejected or left unaddressed, they turned to the High Court for relief.
The petitioners contended that JK PSC's evaluation method was inherently biased and discriminatory, leading to inconsistent treatment compared to UPSC standards. They argued that specific instructions had been issued to evaluators to favor certain subjects, specifically disadvantageous to Anthropology candidates.
Conversely, the respondents, represented by JK PSC, maintained that these allegations were speculative, unsupported by concrete evidence, and that such administrative decisions fell within the Commission's purview.
After considering the rival contentions the court underlined the Limited Judicial Role in Examination Methodologies and emphasized that evaluation methodologies are best evaluated by experts in the field, not by courts.
“Whether the methodology for evaluating the answer books of the candidates appearing in competitive examination, adopted by the UPSC is better than the one that is being adopted by the JK PSC, can be decided only by the experts and not by this Court or by the Tribunal”, remarked Justice Dhar writing for the bench.
The court noted that the petitioners failed to provide specific details or examples to support their claim of discrimination and recorded,
“In any case, the petitioners have not given any specific details or instances to substantiate their contention that the methodology that is being adopted by the JK PSC is, in any manner, discriminatory against them”
Another assertion that evaluators were instructed to award fewer marks to Anthropology candidates was deemed speculative, as the petitioners did not present solid evidence to back this claim.
Reiterating a well-established legal principle, the court stated that candidates cannot challenge the selection process once they have voluntarily participated and subsequently failed. Such challenges, post-facto, are generally inadmissible unless there is clear evidence of procedural irregularity or bias, the court clarified.
Based on these observations, the High Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed the same.
Case Title: Zaka Chowdhary Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 301