'Doesn't Answer Our Question, Nothing But Contempt': Gujarat High Court Slams Public Service Commission's Affidavit In Arthashastra Question Row

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (April 2) orally remarked that the affidavit filed by the officers of State Public Service Commission over the Arthashastra question row, was "nothing but contempt" as it did not answer the specific queries posed by the court in its previous order. The court was hearing a matter wherein the candidate had fallen short of 1-mark to qualify GPSC's written recruitment exam and had questioned the answer key arguing that it was incorrect. For context on March 20 the court had said that the Gujarat Public Service Commission's earlier affidavit with respect to source of the question on Kautilya's Arthashastra posed in its recruitment exam last year, appeared to be an "eyewash" as it did not disclose whether the pdf version of the book–from which the question was framed–relied upon by GPSC was authenticated or not. The court had directed the GPSC to state whether there exists any policy for authenticating downloaded material; if no such policy exists, to state the basis on which the book, which was stated to be the basis of the question, was treated as authenticated.When the matter was taken up in the first session, as the counsel for GPSC handed over the affidavit Justice Nirzar S Desai after perusing it orally said:"My order was very specific. What I have asked has not been answered. This is nothing but contempt according to me. I propose to issue contempt against your Secretary and Chairman both...My order was very specific on March 20. But before that whom would you prefer to address the court learned Government Pleader (GP) or learned Advocate General (AG)". It further orally said, "Is it a matter of poor understanding of your Chairman and Secretary or is it a matter of come what may we will do what we want to do? Which kind of mindset does it reflect?".Meanwhile senior advocate Megha Jani appearing for the candidate submitted that the earlier order of March 16 had not been complied with and the court had granted one more opportunity to effect complaince. The court thereafter orally said, "So does it reflect poor understanding on the part of your Chairman and Secretary? Or it reflects their mentality that they are above court irrespective of how many times the court keeps asking them, they will not file an affidavit as per courts orders? Why shouldnt I issue contempt against them?". As the counsel for GPSC sought for listing the matter after day or two, the court orally questioned the counsel asking had the court not given sufficient time to the commission to respond. The court again asked as to whom it should ask to appear in the matter–the AG or the GP; the counsel stated that the GP maybe asked to appear. As the counsel attempted to assist the court on its query, the court further orally said, "If your intention was to assist, the affidavit that is being thrown at the court would have been as per order passed by court on (March) 16 & 20...Affidavit which doesn't need place in file is being thrown at the court...are you agreeable that I should issue contempt to both of them? Either they admit they have a poor understanding of courts order, they are not capable to understand what the court wanted them to state on oath. Or they may say that they have understood everything but they are so stubborn and headstrong that come what may they dont want to file affidavit as per court's orders. Which version would you like to propagate?". The counsel sought to read the court's orders and GPSC's affidavit and submitted, "We are saying that this is not in our domain".The court then questioned why and asked as to who was conducting the examination. To this the GPSC's counsel submitted, "We are responsible for administrative set up. The subject expert would set up the question papers".Remarking that the commission cannot run away from its responsibility, the court orally said, "Where is the specific clause or provision that your responsibility is limitted only to this extent? Then place it on record. State on oath that you are not responsible...File an affidavit that it doesnt come within your domain". As the court asked the counsel as to when should the matter be kept the counsel sought time for two weeks. To this the court orally said, "Not two weeks….2:30pm come with affidavit. You are saying that you are running an organization which is so big that it takes 200 exams a year means almost one exam every alternate day, and you are incapable of taking responsibility on your shoulder?". The counsel meanwhile said that in today's affidavit it had stated that "it is not within domain of Commission to determine correctness of the answers or authenticate the material referred to". To this the court orally said, "Then for what are you heading the commission? You just want to enjoy powers without any responsibilty?". As the counsel urged that the paper setters would be subject experts the court asked as to what was the source to say that "this will be within domain of Chairman & Secretary and this ...

'Doesn't Answer Our Question, Nothing But Contempt': Gujarat High Court Slams Public Service Commission's Affidavit In Arthashastra Question Row

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Doesn't Answer Our Question, Nothing But Contempt': Gujarat High Court Slams Public Service Commission's Affidavit In Arthashastra Question Row

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers