1. Selection of respondents No.4 & 5 for the post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants made by the J&K Services Selection Board and notified vide select list dated 19-1-1996 has been challenged in the present petition. Petitioner and private respondents were candidates for selection to the post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants for which applications were invited vide Advertisement Notice No. 5 of 1995 dated 5-6-1995. Two posts were notified for Open category, whereas one for RBA category. The qualification as prescribed in the notification was Matric with diploma in Junior Opthalmic Assistant Training from SFM or any other recognized institute. Posts were available in District Anantnag. After receiving the applications, the selection committee was constituted for interview. Respondents No.4 & 5 who hail from District Anantnag were interviewed in Valley by the Committee comprising of (i) Smt Sudhna Hafiz, convener; (ii) Chief Medical Officer, Member and (iii) District Employment Officer concerned, Member. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was interviewed at Jammu. It is alleged that interviews were fixed on 6-11-1995. However, due to non-availability of expert same were postponed and the interviews were conducted on 8-11-1995. Challenge to the selection is made by the petitioner on the following grounds:- (i) That the petitioners interview was conducted without an expert and therefore, he has been assessed by a Selection committee without any expert. It is alleged that two different selection committees have conducted the interviews which caused prejudice to the petitioner. (ii) he third vacancy meant for RBA category has not been filled up due to non-availability of candidate from the said category,. According to the petitioner under Rule 15 (4) SRO 126 of 1994 the vacancy was required to be filled up from open category. (iii) The criterion fixed for the selection has not been applied. The selection was to be based by taking into account the merit in Matric as also the Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant, the basic qualification notified whereas the selection has been made by only taking into consideration the merit in Diploma (Technical Qualification) and not the Matric which was one of the basic qualification as notified in Advertisement. 2. The respondent Board contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure the merit over and above the private respondent in the process of selection. 2. The respondent Board contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure the merit over and above the private respondent in the process of selection. It is disclosed that the petitioner secured 54.91 points whereas respondents No.4 & 5 secured 55.20 and 56.60 points. The merit of the petitioner being less he could not be selected. Regarding the association of expert, it is specifically mentioned that Dr. M.P. Gupta, Dy Director (State Malaria Officer) was co-opted as expert Member as Dr Mohd Hussain could not be present on the date when the petitioner was interviewed. 3. This petition was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 17-8-1999. However, in the appeal preferred being LPA (SW) No. 18/2000 the judgment of this Court was set aside and the case remanded to the writ Court, for deciding afresh after giving an opportunity to the private respondents who were the appellants before the appellate Court. 4. Respondents No.4 & 5 appeared through Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate. However, on 16-11-2005 Mr. Bhat reported that despite communication made by him these respondents have not responded and he is not able to file the reply as directed by Honble Division Bench. After the remand the State respondents did not file the counter. The matter was accordingly heard, on the basis of available pleadings. 5. The respondents in their reply have specifically mentioned that Dr. M.P Gupta, an expert was associated with the process of selection. I have no reason to dis-believe this statement of the respondents. The only relevant question which needs examination and consideration is whether the criterion adopted for selection has been adhered to or not. From the record produced which was called for, it is evident that the following criterion relating to the basic qualification was fixed:- Basic qualification: 80 points Viva voce 20 points Total 100 points. 6. The advertisement notice (copy placed on record) for the post in question indicated the qualification academic/technical as under:- "Matric with Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant Training under the criteria adopted by Board, 80% weight-age has to be given for basic qualification i.e. Matric with Diploma." From the reply filed, it becomes evident that weightage only for Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant has been given and the academic qualification which is one of the essential basic qualification has not been taken into consideration at all. 7. 7. This Court in case Bharat Bhushan v. State and others, SWP No. 2844/2001 decided on 17-10-2003, considered the similar issue. The judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench in case Jasbir Kour and others v. State and others, 2004 (3) JKJ 63. On consideration of the question of weightage following was held- "The eligibility criteria for selection was the academic qualification and the technical qualification but the J&K SSRB at the time of selection has neither considered nor given weightage to the academic qualification and based the selection upon the weightage given to the technical qualification and thus the selection is made in an arbitrary manner. From the record, it appears that the entire weightage of 80% applied to the technical qualification, whereas due weightage was required to be given to matric and higher qualification equally along with technical qualification. The advertisement notice clearly indicated the essential eligibility criteria matriculation with diploma in Laboratory Assistant or any other equal qualification and initially fixed by the selection committee. The selection having been made by the J&K SSRB being in contravention of the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice and fixed by the selection committee initially, is arbitrary and without application of mind. Both the academic qualification and the technical qualification as indicated in the advertisement notice were the essential eligibility criteria and weightage was to be given to both these qualifications but the J&K SSRB has given weightage only to technical qualification and ignored and the academic qualification while making the selection. The learned Single Judge after having considered all these aspects of the matter in detail, in his elucid judgment, quashed the selection of the private respondents before the writ court and directed the J&K SSRB to make the selection afresh out of the candidates who appeared pursuant to both notifications (Supra) and giving proper weight-age to the academic and higher qualification along with technical qualification equally as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, is the view to which no exception can be taken. The very selection process stands vitiated. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, necessitating interference in an appeal." 8. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, is the view to which no exception can be taken. The very selection process stands vitiated. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, necessitating interference in an appeal." 8. In view of the above legal position, selection of private respondents for the post of Opthalmic Assistant is hereby set aside. Respondent- Board is directed to give weightage to both the Matric as also the Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant, being basic qualification after adding the marks of interview already awarded, the merit of candidates be re-determined and the candidates re-arranged in the order of merit. Selection to follow on re-determined merit.