Jammu & Kashmir High Court Refuses To Postpone Civil Judge Exam, Says Candidates Expected To Be Prepared

Court dismissed the plea moved by fifteen aspirants challenging the notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) regarding the examination schedule for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

Contesting the notification dated 27.08.2023, which scheduled the preliminary examination for 08.10.2023 and the competitive (Mains) examination from 08.11.2023, the petitioners argued that the given preparation time of forty days was insufficient, especially for those who recently started practicing law. The petitioners alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, asserting that candidates with varying levels of experience should be granted different preparation durations.

Advocate Rajesh Bhushan representing the petitioners argued that the differentiation in experience and practice among candidates necessitated varied preparation periods. He emphasized that candidates with only a Law Degree were also eligible for the examination, making it unfair to impose the same preparation duration on all applicants.

Noting that out of 3,836 applicants, only 15 candidates raised concerns about the time given for preparation, the bench comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Puneet Gupta observed,

“It is pertinent to mention that earlier two years practice at Bar was the requirement before the candidate could apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) but that criteria was done away with thereby granting opportunity to appear for the aforesaid post even to those who have just obtained “Law Degree‟. It only leads to the conclusion that the students who had just obtained the “Law Degree”were found suitable for applying for the post and can get selected if they have merit. Can such candidates seek a particular time frame for preparation of examination? Obviously not. They are considered to be ready for taking examination any time and without clamoring for specific time period to prepare for examination”.

Scrutinizing the petitioners’ claims and the Commission’s actions, the bench emphasised that the discretion to conduct examinations and set time frames rested with the Commission. It added,

“The discretion of the Commission to conduct the examination cannot be normally interfered with by the court unless the Court is of the view that the time period has been scheduled with some malafide purpose or extraneous reasons which of course is conspicuous by absence in the present petition. No such plea is raised”.

The Court further stated that candidates must be prepared to take exams under diverse circumstances and seasons, dismissing the plea that specific timeframes be set for different categories of candidates.

Also dismissing the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners the bench asserted that the concept of "advantage" was not applicable in this context, considering the varied backgrounds of applicants.

“The word “advantage‟ is misnomer as far as the present case is concerned. The plea raised is misconceived. The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners is only imaginary and untenable. It is not expected nor can it be otherwise conceived by the Commission that a particular candidate requires a specific time to prepare himself for the examination”, the bench said while dismissing the petition.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258

Case Title: Akshay Mattoo vs High Court of J&K

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 258

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment