Srinagar: J&K High Court on Monday imposed costs to the tune Rs 50, 000 on two petitioners for making fraudulent representations challenging the question papers of Public Service Commission (PSC).
The petitions were filed by one Khan Aatif Abdullah and Aquib Kirmani. Both had appeared in the J&K Combined Services Competitive Exams 2021. The duo claimed that they filed representations with the PSC against the incorrect questions and answer keys in the Preliminary Examination papers.
All the controversial questions in GS-1 ought to have been deleted and marks accordingly allotted to them, the petitioners prayed through their lawyer.
The lawyer standing for the PSC on the other hand submitted that none of the two petitioners had filed representations with it in terms of Rules.
“Copies of representations referred to in the petitions and were in fact not filed by the petitioners but one Naved Ahmed,” the counsel representing the PSC told the court.
He said “the bank drafts in the representations relied upon by the petitioners have been superimposed and was a clear case of misrepresentation and fraud perpetrated by them on this count.”
“No representation were filed at all by the petitioners, as had been asserted by them before the court,” he pointed out.
With a view to verify whether the petitioners had in fact filed the representations with the PSC, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur recalled the records from the concerned quarters.
“From the record, it does transpire that the petitioners in fact had not filed any representation as had been alleged by them. It also could be seen from the record that the so-called representations of the petitioners were in fact filed by some other candidates,” the court found.
“On the fact of it, therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that they had filed representations is, therefore, totally false and incorrect,” it said.
It held that the petitioners had not come to the court with clean hands. But considering they being unemployed, considering that that their future may be adversely affected, the court proposed not to take any serious action against the petitioners.
It, however, imposed cost of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the petitioners collectively, out of which Rs 25,000 shall be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and the rest of Rs 25,000 to be deposited into the account of the Public Service Commission within two weeks from the date of passing of this order.
Their two petitions were found to be without any merit and were accordingly dismissed.
