ANURADHA GANDRAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide advertisement notice No. 2-PSC of 2008 dated 18th of February' 2008, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Dental Surgeons in the Health and Medical Education Department. Petitioner has also competed, but failed to make the grade. She has collected the information about her merit position by filing an application under Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The information, as furnished by the respondent J&K Public Service Commission (for short Commission), is placed on the records, which would indicate that petitioner has secured 59 marks in total. Out of 59 marks, she has been awarded 01 mark for experience. Her claim is that for experience, she should have been awarded 4= marks in terms of Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (for short 'The Rules')

(2.) As per the Rule 51 of the Rules, five marks are allocated for experience. For every full year of experience, one mark is to be awarded, subject to maximum of five marks. The petitioner claims to have requisite experience, which is certified by the concerned authorities. In this connection, the petitioner has placed on record Photostat copy of the experience certificate dated 30th of July' 2003 issued by Shree Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalaya, Jammu wherein it is certified that petitioner has worked as Dental Surgeon for a period of more than three years and six months i.e., from 15th of May' 1999 to 31st of October' 2002. The Director, Health Services, Jammu has certified that the said Institute is registered under Nursing Homes & Clinical Establishments Act, bearing registration No J/NHCE/2001-2002/049. There is one more certificate issued by the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu wherein it is certified that the petitioner has done one year House Job training from 03rd of December' 1997 to 02nd of December' 1998. Based on the said certificates, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner has four and half year's experience, so for experience out of five marks, she should have been awarded four and half marks, instead one mark has been awarded. In case three and half marks more are awarded to the petitioner, she will get 62.5 marks instead of 59 marks.

(3.) Respondent-Commission in its reply has given the vivid picture of entire process of selection and then while dealing with the question of experience, it has been stated that the experience attained by the petitioner as Tutor in Indira Gandhi Government Dental College, Jammu and as Dental Surgeon in private hospital namely Shree Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalaya, Jammu is not suitable, thus experience possessed by the petitioner is not valid experience for the purpose, so marks could not be awarded for such inappropriate experience.