LAWS(J&K)-2013-5-6

SHWITI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On May 07, 2013
Shwiti Gupta Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAMMU and Kashmir Public Service Commission vide notification dated 23rd June, 2003 invited applications from the candidates fulfilling eligibility criteria prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, and reflected in the notification, for 33 posts of Dental Surgeon in the Pay Scale of Rs. 800-13500 in Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. The petitioners, respondents 3 to 58 and other eligible candidates responded to the advertisement notice. The selection process was completed and list of selected candidates published on 23rd August, 2005. The selected candidates were appointed as Dental Surgeons vide Government Order No. 459-HME of 2005 dated 29.08.2005. The petitioners did not find place in the select list and therefore were not appointed as Dental Surgeons.

(2.) THE petitioners aggrieved with their non-selection have filed the writ petition on hand. They question the selection on the grounds set out in the writ petition and seek quashment of the notification dated 23rd August, 2005 whereby the select list has been notified and the Government Order No. 459-HME of 2005 dated 29.08.2005 appointing selected candidates as Dental Surgeons in the Grade of 8000-13500. The petitioners also seek writ of certiorari quashing Rule-51 Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Rules(Business and Procedure Rules) 1980 invited vide notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004 and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to recast the merit list and declare petitioners selected as Dental Surgeons.

(3.) THE writ petition is resisted by the respondent Commission on the grounds that the Commission while making selection has adhered to the Constitutional mandate in as much as a level play field, has been provided to all the candidates aspiring for the advertised posts and the selection made on the basis of performance of the candidates including the petitioners and respondents 3 to 58. It is pleaded that the screening test is conducted to short list the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 and the merit obtained in the screening test does not carry any weightage for the purposes of final selection. It is insisted that merit in academics may not be decisive about suitability of a candidate and due weightage, while making selection, weightage is to be given to the performance of the candidate in interview wherein the merit is assessed by the Members of the Commission with the assistance of expert in the field. It is pointed out that interview in the present case conducted with the assistance of an expert was aimed at assessing the merit of each candidate including his knowledge on the subject, capacity to interact, general awareness, aptitude and suitability for the job. It is pleaded that merit of all the candidates was assessed on the touchstone of a uniform criteria and marks given on the basis of academic performance and higher qualification. It is denied that Rule-51 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India and gives wide and unbridled powers to the Commission or leaves scope for conversion of merit into demerit. The petitioners, according to the respondent Commission have only a right to be considered for the advertised posts and said right has been duly respected in their case and their merit and performance assessed on the same criteria as applied to the respondents 3 to 58.