Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 142 (JK)

Harsh Khajuria v. State of J&K

2017-03-17

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. Caveat No. 824 of 2017. Discharged. OWP No. 370/2017 and MP No. 1/2017. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Chandan Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. F.A. Natnoo, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 18.1.2017 issued by the Public Service Commission to the extent it fixes the date of examination as 19.3.2017 for the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 and further seeks a mandamus, commanding the respondents to postpone the date of said examination. 5. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 6. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (for short to be referred to as 'PSC') issued a notification No. PSC/Exm/2016/52 dated 18.6.2016, for conducting the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016, which was scheduled for 19.2.2017. However, vide notice dated 14.12.2016, the said date was re-scheduled for 12.3.2017. 7. It appears that the petitioners applied pursuant to the aforesaid notification. However, by virtue of notice dated 18.1.2017, the date was further re-scheduled and instead of 12.3.2017, the examination has now been fixed for 19.3.2017. The date was re-scheduled on account of the fact that the festival of Holi fell on 12.3.2017. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the PSC ought not to have fixed 19.3.2017 as the date of examination inasmuch as even the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2016 (Tier-III) has also been fixed on the same date. 9. It was then urged that in case the PSC does not postpone the date of examination from 19.3.2017 to any other date, the petitioners would lose their right to appear in the SSC examination being conducted on the same date. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents-PSC, however, stated that the SSC Tier-III examination was initially scheduled to be held on 5.3.2017 as per the calendar issued by SSC. 19.3.2017, it was stated, was fixed as the date for the examination by the PSC after having fully ensured that it did not have clash either with UPSC examination or that of the Staff Selection Commission Tier-III examination, which was, as per the calendar to be held on 5.3.2017. 11. 19.3.2017, it was stated, was fixed as the date for the examination by the PSC after having fully ensured that it did not have clash either with UPSC examination or that of the Staff Selection Commission Tier-III examination, which was, as per the calendar to be held on 5.3.2017. 11. It was further stated that the SSC later on rescheduled the date for the SSC Tier-III examination on 19.3.2017 vide notice dated 1.2.2017 exactly 12 days after the notification of the date of examination by the PSC. 12. It was urged that as many as 47,000/- candidates have applied for appearing in the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 across 84 centres in the State for which elaborate arrangements have been made. 13. It was further urged that the centres have been established at Leh, Kargil, Doda, Rajouri, Anantnag and Baramulla besides in the cities of Jammu and Kashmir and that all arrangements in this regard have already been made and accommodation fixed in the institutions keeping in view the academic sessions of the students. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents-PSC further submits that even the stationary has been circulated among the supervisors of 84 sub-centres throughout the State, who have already made the seating arrangements for the candidates. Besides this, it was urged that staff has already been detailed for ensuring smooth conduct of the examination and that any postponement at this stage would severely hamper the conduct of the examination and lead to chaos and confusion amongst the students, who have already faced two postponements of the said examination in the past. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. Admittedly, the petitioners herein have applied for the examination being conducted not only by the PSC but also by the SSC, which falls on the same date. 17. Equally true is the fact that when notice dated 18.1.2017 was issued by the PSC, fixing the date of examination as 19.3.2017, the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2016 (Tier-III) was to be held on 5.3.2017. This date, however, was changed subsequently on 1.2.2017 by the SSC. 18. The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioners have any right in law to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus against the PSC to force them to postpone the date of examination fixed by them. This date, however, was changed subsequently on 1.2.2017 by the SSC. 18. The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioners have any right in law to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus against the PSC to force them to postpone the date of examination fixed by them. In my opinion, no such right exists in favour of the petitioners only because they have also decided to appear in another examination, date whereof has been fixed on the same date. 19. Law does not give a right to the petitioners to ensure that they must appear in every examination conducted by the selection authorities and to seek postponement of such examinations accordingly if they happen to overlap. The petitioners only have a right of consideration in the process of selection, which right is not taken away in the instant case by the PSC, who had taken all necessary steps to ensure that on the date fixed by them, there was no other examination being conducted of the likes of Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2016 (Tier-III). The petitioners shall have to elect and prioritize as to in which examination they shall finally appear and where their prospects appear to be better. 20. In case the court were to interfere in postponing the date of examination as is being sought in the present case only on the grounds as suggested by the petitioners, it would have serious consequences in future and prevent the selection agencies as the PSC from completing their selection processes within time inasmuch as some other candidates would come forward to claim that the dates so fixed were overlapping with the dates of some other examinations in which they have chosen to appear. This would be a never ending process. 21. This would be a never ending process. 21. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was in the public interest to postpone the examination being conducted by the PSC as students from the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be prevented from appearing in the SSC examination also appears to be without any merit inasmuch as, as per the statement of learned counsel for the respondents, as many as 47,000/- candidates are waiting to appear in the examination in question as against only 44 candidates from Jammu and Kashmir, who appear to have been shortlisted for appearing in the Staff Selection Commission Graduate Level Examination, 2016 (Tier-III). 22. Tinkering with the schedule of examination at the last minute, when the examination is scheduled to be held after one day, would lead to total confusion amongst the students' community, who may have already travelled far distances to appear in the examination so proposed. 23. Having considered the entire issue, I am of the opinion that the petitioners do not have any right, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to seek postponement of the date of examination. 24. As a sequel to the above, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected MP.