Srinagar- The declaration of the Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Services Civil Judge Junior Division Mains Examination 2025 results has triggered widespread discontent among candidates from the Kashmir division, with allegations of large scale irregularities, regional bias, and lack of transparency in the evaluation process.
The results were declared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission on January 20, 2026, nearly two months after the completion of the Mains examination held between November 16 and November 26, 2025.
According to candidate estimates and preliminary scrutiny of the result list, only 13 candidates from the Kashmir division have reportedly been shortlisted for the viva voce stage out of a total of 124 candidates, while the remaining shortlisted candidates are from the Jammu division. This has raised serious concerns as nearly 600 candidates from Kashmir were among the 1,016 aspirants who qualified the preliminary examination.
The recruitment process began with the JKPSC notification issued on May 14, 2025, for 42 posts of Civil Judge Junior Division. The preliminary examination, initially scheduled for September 21, was postponed and later conducted on September 28, 2025, across the Union Territory.
Candidates from Kashmir have termed the sharp decline in representation from prelims to mains as statistically implausible and have demanded disclosure of marks, subject wise scores, centre wise data, and evaluation methodology.
Several aspirants have also alleged that one entire examination centre in Srinagar has been shown as failed, raising apprehensions that answer scripts from that centre may not have been evaluated properly. They have described the mass failure as arbitrary and unexplained.
The Kashmir Jurists Bar Association, in a detailed representation, has called for immediate transparency measures including publication of complete marksheets, disclosure of examiner selection and moderation policy, independent scrutiny of alleged anomalies, and introduction of a re-evaluation or verification mechanism in disputed cases.
The Association stated that judicial services examinations determine future custodians of justice and therefore demand the highest standards of accountability. It warned that even a perception of bias could have long term repercussions on institutional credibility.
Meanwhile, social media platforms have seen strong reactions from lawyers and aspirants.
Vikas Amin, in a post, described the results as a shock for the Kashmir division and claimed a brutal disparity in selection figures. Another user called the alleged irregularities a blow to the foundation of justice and urged the JKPSC to ensure transparency to rebuild public trust.
Separately, Kashmir Bar Association President Advocate Haamid Bhat strongly condemned the results, calling them biased, regionally skewed, and an insult to merit. He said it was unacceptable to suggest that Kashmir, which has historically produced top ranking professionals and officers, suddenly lacked merit.
Advocate Bhat demanded a time bound independent audit of the entire selection process including evaluation, scaling, and moderation. He warned that failure to act would compel the Association to initiate legal and democratic action.
As dissatisfaction grows, candidates have urged the JKPSC to respond promptly and address the concerns to restore confidence in the recruitment process. Several aspirants have indicated that the issue may be taken to court if transparency demands are not met.
