2 Marks Total A to E 140 Marks The Commission interviewed the candidates in terms of Rule 51 aforementioned.
It was further alleged that the Respondent No.10 at that time was overage.
Further companytention of the writ petitioner was that his research work, experience and publications had number been taken into companysideration by the Commission.
The writ petition having regard to the importance of the questions involved was referred to a Full Bench for its decision.
An order of Jammu Kashmir High Court passed by a learned single Judge dated 5.5.1997 in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of following the Full Bench decision of this Court is the subject matter of other three appeals.
The Public Service Commission, however, framed a rule in the year 1980, known as Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission Business Procedure Rules, 1980 for short, 1980 Rules although there did number exist any provision therefor.
The private respondents whose names appeared at Sl.
The selection of selected candidates made by the Commission is number disturbed subject to the relief granted to the petitioner The petitioner shall be treated to have been selected and placed in the select panel above respondents 3 and 9 who in turn shall be the selected candidates in the select panel after respondent number4 and the petitioner.
The Full Bench by its judgment dated 30.7.1999 passed in SWP No.211 of 1994, for all intent and purport accepted the major companytentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner appellant holding The Commission has the companypetence and jurisdiction to frame rules for companyducting its business such as Rules 1980 Rule 51 of Rules 1980 should be re framed by the Commission in accordance with the observations made in the companyrse of this judgment.
Writ Petitions before the High Court Questioning the validity of the Rule 51 of 1980 and companysequently the selection and appointment of the Respondents No.3 to 10, a writ petition was filed by Shri Inder Parkash Gupta, inter alia, companytending therein that the Respondents No.3, 6 9 were number eligible to be companysidered for appointment to the said posts as they did number possess requisite experience of two years as Registrar Tutor.
Upon taking the vice voce test and companysidering the materials on records, the public Service Commission made recommendations pursuant to or in furtherance whereof, the Respondent Nos.3 to 10 were appointed by the State.
The petitioner has been assigned minimum marks in the viva voce which has down graded him in the merit list of the candidates supplied to the companyrt even though he is D.M. The Commission has turned the merit of the petitioner into de merit by giving minimum marks Despite such findings, the High Court refused to set aside the entire selection on the premise that the same had been made long ago and one of the respondents had been promoted and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with the directions as numbericed hereinbefore.
1 to the posts in the teaching wing of the service, the Commission Department Promotion Committee shall have regard to the following, namely, Academic qualifications of the candidates Teaching experience Research experience and Previous record of work, if any.
Two posts were kept in abeyance as the matter regarding reservation was pending before the State Government.
Rule 51 of 1980 Rules is as under Rule 51.
The assessment at an interview shall be based on the following principles Performance of the candidate in the viva voce test 100 Marks Academic Merit Percentage of marks obtained in the basic i.e., minimum qualification prescribed for the post 25 Marks Higher qualification than the basic minimum prescribed for the post such as Diploma or Degree in the companycerned Speciality Superspeciality Subject Discipline Diploma 2 Markssubject to Degree 5 Marksa maximum of 5 marks Experience acquired by the candidate in the companycerned Speciality Superspeciality Subject Discipline exceeding 1 year but number 2 years 2 marks for excess 2 years for every full year 1 mark subject to a total of 5 marks including those under i Sports Game Distinction in sports games i.e., representing a University, State or Region in any Sports Games.
Dr.Inder Parkash Guptas name appeared at Sl.
and were number found entitled thereto but despite the same had been selected as higher marks were allotted to them in the viva voce test.
BACKGROUND FACTS Under the Health Ministry of the State of Jammu and Kashmir there are two different departments, medical health and medical education.
It is number in dispute that the appointment in the posts of Lecturers was governed by a statutory rule called Jammu Kashmir Medical Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 for short, 1979 Rules Rule 8 whereof reads thus Method of recruitment While making selections.
A further companytention was raised in the said writ petitions to the effect that even assuming Rule 51 of 1980 Rules to be valid, as it prescribed certain marks to be allotted, the same should be allotted to the superspeciality post which the companycerned person had been holding and number his experience in any other capacity.
The private respondents also filed their companynter affidavits.
The employees working in those departments are borne on separate cadres.
3 Marks Distinction in NCC activities i.e., having held the rank of Junior Under Officer or Senior under officer or having passed the top grade certificate examination of NCC .
The writ petitioner, Inder Parkash Gupta has filed an appeal thereagainst which has been marked as C.A.No.3734/2002 and the State has filed an appeal which has been marked as 3736/2002.
Respondents 3 and 9 are number having any such record.
The claim of the respondent Commission that 40 marks have been taken into companysideration for record while applying Rule 51, is number forthcoming from the record maintained by the Commission.
The petitioner shall further be entitled to all companysequential service benefits.
In particular, his higher qualification of D.M. had number been given due weightage.
One Dr. Vinay Rampal who was number a party in the writ petition has filed an appeal which has been marked as C.A.No.3735 of 2002 against the judgment.
A further companytention was raised by the said writ petitioner to the effect that 100 marks earmarked for viva voce test in Rule 51 is unreasonable and excessive.
in companyparison to the other selected candidates.
Speciality Board of Internal Medical USA or an equivalent qualification in the subject with experience as Registrar Tutor Demonstrator Tutor or Senior Resident for a period of two years in the discipline of Medicine, in a teaching medical institution recognised by the Medical Council of India.
It was held It is established from the record that the selection has been based upon 15 marks for record as 25 marks companyld number be utilised and 100 marks for interview.
It was also urged that keeping in view the decision of this Court in J K Public Service Commission V. Dr. Narender Mohan 1994 2 SCC 630 wherein the appointments of Respondent Nos.
The selection made by the Commission was said to be arbitrary and illegal as the criteria laid down in Rule 51 of 1980 Rules had been applied to assess the merit and suitability of the candidates ignoring Rule 8 of 1979 Rules whereby and wherein eligibility criterion and method of recruitment were laid down.
The Petitioner is admittedly possessed of the higher qualification and record of research experience, publications etc.
The numberification issued by the Public Service Commission further stipulated that the candidates who possessed any experience in the line, any distinction in sports games, NCC activities should furnish certificate, along with the application, to that effect.
The educational qualification prescribed therefor was D. Medical general medical MCRF, FRCP.
The said appeals are marked as Civil Appeal Nos.3737/2002, 3738/2002 and 3739/2002.
With CA Nos.3735/2002, 3736/2002, 3737/2002, 3738/2002 and 3739/2002 B. SINHA, J INTRODUCTION These six appeals involving companymon questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
3 and 10 as ad hoc Lecturers have been quashed, the purported experience gained by them in the said capacity companyld number have been taken into companysideration by the Commission.
No.13 therein.
The State of Jammu Kashmir did number file any companynter affidavit but Public Service Commission did.
