Antriksh Sharma vs Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission

Rajnesh Oswal, J

This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court in WP(C) No. 2582/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the appellant being aggrieved of introduction of negative marking in the preliminary examination (already held on 28.09.2025), had filed the writ petition for quashing Notice No. PSC/DR/LAW/2025 dated 10.09.2025 on the ground that sudden introduction of negative marking, after the commencement of the selection process, amounts to changing the rules for the conduct of the exam, which is not permissible. It was also contended that the syllabus for the examination was changed after the issuance of notification, thereby adversely affecting the candidates.

A perusal of the record reveals that Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022 provides that it would apply to all the examinations conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. Further, Rule 10(b) of the Rules ibid provides that there will be negative marking for incorrect answers in the manner as mentioned below:-

There will be negative marking for incorrect answers for all questions as detailed below:-

(i) There are four options for the answer to every question. For each question for which wrong answer has been given by the candidate, one-fourth (0.25) of the marks assigned to that question will be deducted as penalty;

(ii) If the candidate gives more than one answer, it will be treated as a wrong answer even if one of the given answers happens to be correct and there will be same penalty as above for that question;

(iii) If a question is left blank i.e., no answer is given by the candidate, there will be no penalty for that question.

Notification dated 10.09.2025 was issued prior to the holding of the examination and as such, the appellant cannot claim to be aggrieved of the same, more particularly, when the preliminary examination was to take place thereafter. Pursuant to a query made by this court, the appellant admitted that he has participated in the examination on 28.09.2025. Further, the change of syllabus was necessitated due to repeal of laws as they were in operation prior to Reorganisation Act, 2019. The appellant cannot claim that change of syllabus has affected the rights of the candidates adversely.

After having heard the appellant in person and perusing the record, we do not find any reason to show indulgence as the learned Writ Court has rightly considered the controversy. Therefore, the present appeal is found to be misconceived and the same is dismissed.