1. Pursuant to Notification Nos. 13-PSC of 2008 dated 31.12.2008 and 14-PSC of 2009 dated 17.07.2009 issued by the State Public Service Commission, the peti tioner and respondents 6 & 7, including the other eligible candidates, applied for the post of Lecturers in Medicine in the Government Medical College, Srinagar/Jammu. Respondents 6 & 7 came to be selected and appointed. Feeling aggrieved of the mode and method of the said selection, the petitioner questioned the same on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case the petitioner is that he has completed his MBBS degree in the year 1991 through University of Kashmir and obtained degree of Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine) through Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences in the year 1998 in first attempt. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the petitioner com pleted Doctor of Medicine (D.M.), Neurology, through All India Medical Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, that too, in the first attempt. The petitioner has to his credit various publications, details whereof are given in annexure 'E' to the writ petition. The petitioner has also worked as Senior Resident D. M. (Neurology) in the department of Neurology in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, for a short period and has also participated in the teaching programmes during that period. 3. Having to his credit all these degrees and qualifications, the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department of the State of J&K, Kashmir, and was posted in District Hospital Pulwama. It is further averred that, while being in the service of the Health Department, the petitioner worked as a Lecturer on deputation in the Department of Medicine, in Government Medical College and Associated Hospital Srinagar from 11.01.2007 to 30.06.2009 which fact is evidenced by annexure 'H' appended to the writ petition. The petitioner is a member of socially and educationally backward class of J&K, falling under the category of 'Resident of Backward Area'. 4. The Selection Committee, on conclusion of the selection process, selected respondents 6 & 7 ignoring the superior merit of the petitioner. This, despite the fact that respondent No. 6 was having no teaching experience to his credit and has completed M. D. Course in so many attempts. Same was the position of respondent No. 7, who was also lacking the experience certificate.
This, despite the fact that respondent No. 6 was having no teaching experience to his credit and has completed M. D. Course in so many attempts. Same was the position of respondent No. 7, who was also lacking the experience certificate. It is submitted that neither of the respondents 6 and 7 have any publications to their credit. 5. All these averments have gone un-rebutted and resultantly the writ petition was admitted on 01.08.2011. Post admission notices were issued to the respondents for filing their respective replies. Despite sufficient opportunities given to them, the respondents have failed to file any reply. From perusal of the file, it reveals that nobody has caused appearance on behalf of respondents' 6 to 9 at pre or post admission stages. Even otherwise, they have not said anything against the aver ments made in the writ petition. 6. Law is settled that, if respondents fail to counter and refute the averments made in the writ petition, the averments made therein have to be presumed to be correct. In the case at hand, the respondents have failed to file any reply to controvert the specific averments made in the writ petition, suggesting that they have nothing to urge against the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. Apart from what has been said above, what emerges is that the petitioner's merit, experience, expertise and higher qualifications have not been taken into consider ation while assessing and evaluating his merit in comparison to the other candi dates, especially respondents 6 and 7. 7. In view of the above, the only thing that was required to be examined was whether the Selection Committee had properly evaluated and assessed the merit of the petitioner viz-a-viz respondents 6 & 7. It was, therefore, necessitated to direct the official respondents to produce the original selection record for perusal of the Court, which was produced. The record so produced only contains the selection list. Its perusal further confounds the situation, in as much as it is not forthcoming therefrom as to how and on what basis respondents 6 and 7 have been awarded more points under the heads 'special attributes' and 'viva voce'. No material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner was, in any way, lesser meritorious than respondents 6 & 7.
No material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner was, in any way, lesser meritorious than respondents 6 & 7. On the other hand, the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition, duly supported documents appended with the petition, depict that the petitioner possessed superior merit than respondents 6 and 7. The logical conclusion would be that there is nothing to suggest that the merit of the petitioner was lesser than respondents 6 & 7. 8. In the aforementioned backdrop, I would have quashed the selection/ap pointment of respondents 6 & 7, but that course of action, in my opinion, will not serve any purpose, more so, in view of the position that, in terms of order dated 31.12.2009, the official respondents were directed to keep one post of Lecturer in Medicine vacant without disturbing the select list. 9. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, without disturbing the selection already made, I deem it just and proper to direct the official respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment against the said vacant post of Lecturer in Medicine aforementioned or any other available vacancy. I do so accordingly. The record produced by Mr. A. M. Magray, learned Sr. AAG, is returned to him in the open Court. 10. Disposed of along with CMPs. However, there will be no order as to costs.