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 respondent­J&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. 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. 4. Now the sole question, which emerges for consideration is as to whether based on the above referred certificates, marks are awardable to the petitioner for experience. 5. The requirement as per Rule 51 is to have experience for the concerned discipline. In the advertisement notice No.2-PSC/08 dated 18th of February' 2008 in Para no.6, clause (v) is relevant to be quoted. "(v) has certificate s from the Heads of Organizations, Departmentss for the entire experience claimed, clearly mentioning the duration of the employment (date, month &, year) indicating the basic pay and consolidated pay. The certificates should also mention the nature of the duties performed/ experience obtained in the posts with durations." 6. The certificates as placed on the file dated 08th of December' 1998 and 30th of July' 2003 are not in consonance with the aforesaid requirement. For facility of reference both the two certificates are reproduced herein below: - "Shree Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalaya Run By: Chogan Fattu Jammu Shree Jeev Daya Committee Dated 30.7.2003 Registration No. J/NHCE/2001-2002/049 EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Dr. ANURADHA GANDRAL daughter of Shri Kewal Krishan, resident of Julaka Mohalla, Jammu 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. Her performance as Dental Surgeon in clinic is quite satisfactory. The Institution is recognized by the Government. Sd/ President Shree Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalaya " GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ASSOCIATED HOSPITALS JAMMU. Dr. K.L. Goswami, Principal & Dean M.S. M.Ch. (AIIMS) Professor & Head Department of Surgery No. JMC/FAC/98/4915 Dated: 08/12/1998 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Dr. Anu Radha Gandral D/o. Mr. The Institution is recognized by the Government. Sd/ President Shree Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalaya " GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ASSOCIATED HOSPITALS JAMMU. Dr. K.L. Goswami, Principal & Dean M.S. M.Ch. (AIIMS) Professor & Head Department of Surgery No. JMC/FAC/98/4915 Dated: 08/12/1998 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Dr. Anu Radha Gandral D/o. Mr. Kewal Krishan Gandral has done one year house job training from 03.12.1997 to 02.12.1998 in Dental Surgery department of Government Medical College, Jammu. During this period her work and conduct remained good. Sd/- (Dr. H. L. Goswami) With seal" 7. It was for the petitioner to produce the requisite certificate in the manner as prescribed. Two certificates produced by the petitioner indicate that she has worked as a Dental Surgeon and has done house job, therefore such certificates being deficient in the context of the requirement as envisaged in the advertisement notice as referred to above, could not be validly taken into account by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the fault of the petitioner could not be attributed to the respondent-Commission. The certificates produced by the petitioner have been considered, but not found fit for being taken into consideration for awarding marks under the head `Experience'. It is in this context, in the reply it has been clearly mentioned that the experience attained is inappropriate. 8. Court has no reason to take the view contrary to what has been taken by the Selection Committee. Neither anything adverse nor any mala fides are attributed to the Selection Committee. In absence of any such allegation or mala fides against any of the members of the Select Committee, the contention of the petitioner pales into insignificance. 9. Viewed thus, the petition being without merit is dismissed alone with connected CMPs.