MOHD. NASEER Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board issued an advertisement in the year 1997 inviting applications for supplying vacancy in one post of Sanitary Inspector then available in the district of Rajouri. Appellant responded to the said advertisement but was not selected; instead private Respondent No. 5 was selected. For the purpose of adjudging merit in course of selection, the Board earmarked a total of 100 marks, of which 65 marks was earmarked for qualification; 10 marks for higher qualification; 5 marks for experience and 20 marks for interview. Private Respondent obtained 200 marks out of 350 marks in his basic qualification, on the basis whereof he was to be adjudged what marks he has obtained out of allotted 65 marks for qualification. However, the Registrar Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir State Medical Faculty, Jammu/Kashmir, in the certificate issued in respect of basic qualification in favour of private Respondent had indicated that private Respondent has received 200 marks out of total of 250 marks. The certificate contained a clerical error on the face of it inasmuch as, the certificate had recorded that, in order to obtain the said certificate, the private Respondent was adjudged in 200 marks for theory and 150 marks in practical. However, this error, or mistake, apparent on the face of the certificate was not noticed by the Board and, accordingly, instead of obtaining 37 marks out of 65 marks in basic qualification, the private Respondent obtained 52.06 marks.

(2.) There appears to be no dispute that the Petitioner obtained better marks in the basic qualification than the private Respondent. We, accordingly, see scope of interference in the judgment and order under appeal.

(3.) When as much as 65 marks out of 100 marks was to be awarded on basic qualification, it became obligatory on the part of the Board to ensure that, in the matter of awarding such marks, no one benefits by reason of a mistake which is apparent on the face of the certificate produced by a candidate to determine such marks. The Board being unable to detect the said mistake apparent on the face of the certificate failed to discharge its obligation of being fair to the participants of the selection.