Rouf Ahmad Sofi and Others vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

On the grounds taken in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking permission to amend the writ petition, it is allowed and amended writ petition is

taken on board.

Issue notice to respondents. Notice waived by Mr. Hilal Akbar Lone, Dy. AG for respondent No. 1, by Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate, on

behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and by Mr. T.H. Khwaja on behalf of respondent No. 4. Notice to other respondents returnable within four weeks.

Steps for service within one week.

In terms of order dated 13th of October, 2011, it was ordered that process of selection shall continue, but shall not be given effect until further

orders, and in compliance whereof, respondents 2 and 3 have completed the selection process and issued the selection list.

Precisely, the grounds taken in the writ petition are that the aspiring candidates appearing for the posts of Lecturer in Computer Applications,

including petitioners and private respondents, were asked to attempt and answer the questions which were out of syllabus and as such, the

respondents 2 and 3 have deviated from the syllabus prescribed for the said post. Therefore, the entire selection made in pursuance of such

exercise is vitiated and thus has to go.

Respondents 2 and 3-Public Service Commission have already filed reply in the main Writ petition and have tried to demonstrate the actual

position and have also reflected therein the panel of experts constituted for the purpose. It is apt to reproduce Para 5 of the reply herein:-

In reply to paragraph 7 it is submitted that the petitioners at no point of time represented before the Commission about the details of 44

questions and did not allege which questions were out of syllabus, nor did they mention about the series booklet they appeared in. It needs to be

appreciated by this Hon'ble Court that petitioners even in the writ petition have not mentioned the series that they appeared in. Petitioners have

annexed the series 'A' only but for better appreciation of the Hon'ble Court, it is submitted that the petitioners might have appeared in different

series as mentioned above. Be that as it may, the decision of the answering respondent apart from being applied uniformly to all candidates was

based on advice of subject matter expert. It is further submitted that the Commission having addressed the problem in terms of Rule 12-A and

having deleted all 9 questions those were opined by subject matter expert to out of syllabus and having distributed these marks on pro-rata basis in

accordance of rule, the writ petition on this score is not maintainable.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 have also averred that petitioners have made dispute about 40% questions on the ground that these were out of

syllabus, but they have comparatively fared better in those questions. The statistical data is reproduced in Para 6 of the reply. Further they have

stated that while examining the final result, petitioners figuring at serial Nos, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are intercepted by 48 candidates with cut off merit as

61.622 marks. The petitioner at S.No. 4 and 6 are intercepted by 21 & 66 candidates respectively with cut off merit as 61.622 marks.

Admittedly the expert opinion has gone against the petitioners and they have failed to make the grade. It is yet to be determined whether they

have any case which is subject matter of the writ petition.

Viewed thus, I am of the considered view that petitioners have failed to carve out a prima-facie case at this stage. The balance of convenience

also leans in favour of the selected candidates and against the petitioners. The selected candidates will surely suffer irreparable injury if selection list

is kept on hold and they will be deprived of their right to enjoy the usufruct of selection and they cannot be compensated at the final stage in case

the writ petition fails. However, in case the writ petition succeeds finally, at the best the selection would require cancellation and fresh selection

would be initiated.

In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to keep the selection and appointment of the private respondents subject to outcome of writ

petition. Accordingly, CMP Nos. 4356/2011, 4263/2011, 4145/2011, 3677/2011 and 4695/2011 are disposed of.