1. Pursuant to two Notifications, bearing Nos. 04-PSC of 2010 dated 04.06.2010 and 09-PSC of 2010 dated 26.08.2010, issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission'), the petitioner and other candidates, applied for the post of Lecturer in Medicine in the Government Medical College, Srinagar/Jammu. The petitioner was an open merit category candidate. After completion of the selection process, the Commission published the select list dated 18.1.2011 wherein the petitioner's name did not figure. Feeling aggrieved of the Sect list, the petitioner has questioned the same on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. It is submitted that while making selection to the posts in question, the Commission has not taken into consideration the relevant factors as mandated by the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 ('Rules of 1979' for short), like the academic qualifications, teaching experience, research experience, publications and the previous record of work of the petitioner, as envisaged by the rules having bearing on the matter. 3. Respondent-Commission has filed the counter and has resisted the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder. Official respondents have filed response to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved in the writ petition, while disposing of the ad interim application vide order dated 21.07.2011, it was directed that the selection of private respondents shall remain subject to outcome of writ petition and the official respondents were directed to keep one post of Lecturer reserved. 4. Precisely, the case the petitioner is that the official respondents have not followed the mandate of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1979. It is averred that, while making selections, the Commission has to take into consideration the academic qualifications of the candidates, teaching experience, research experience, publications, and previous record of work, if any. On going through the rule position, it is crystal clear that the required qualification for the post of Lecturer is post graduation or MRCP, FRCP, Special Board of Internal Medicine (USA) or an equivalent qualification in the subject with minimum two years teaching experience and weightage for teaching and publications and previous record of work, if any, has to be given under the said recruitment rules. It is submitted at the Bar that the Commission cannot deviate from the mandate of Rules of 1979, and has to follow the same in letter and spirit in so far as teaching experience and qualification in the Schedule is concerned. It is specifically averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is having the academic qualification at his credit, the details of which have been given in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 5, which reads as under: "5. The petitioner has following academic qualifications at his back:- 1) MD in Medicine; 2) Fellowship in Cardiology from Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. 3) American Heart Association professional membership and Council membership for high B.P. Research Inter disciplinary working group on quality of care and outcomes research; 4) Working experience as founder of Cardio Pulmonary Rehabilitation Centre in Government Medical College which is the only establishment of its kind in the State and he has been assigned the said job because of having fellowship in Cardiology; 5) Working experience as Echo Cardiology in SMHS. 6) Working experience in Cardiology department for Pacemaker implantation; 7) Working experience for upgrading IT for medical research in Government Medical College. 8) Teaching experience of one year in Government Medical College, Srinagar in addition to the four years as against two years required registrar ship. 9) Working/teaching experience in SKIMS Medical College, Bemina; 10) Experience as Assistant Editor in Kashmir Medical Journal, Indexed Medical Journal from Government Medical College, Srinagar; 11) Lead Investigator and author of 17 scientific articles and publications." 5. It is contended that the petitioner submitted the above said work experience and academic qualifications with his application forms and the said work experience and qualifications have not been given due weightage by the Commission. It is submitted further that the persons who conducted the interview of the candidates, including that of the petitioner, were not well versed with the Medical Sciences and were not experienced in the field, which constrained the petitioner to file a representation, which was not considered by the Government or any authority, thereby constraining him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by medium of the writ petition at hand. 6. 6. It is specifically averred in the writ petition that the Selection Committee so constituted has neither perused/examined the record of the petitioner nor they have taken into consideration the publications which he has made and no mark has been awarded for the publications made by the petitioner. It is submitted that his merit and suitability has been absolutely ignored by the Commission at the time of making selections by the Selection Committee so constituted. It is also submitted, that because of the non-technical members of the Selection Committee, his capability and suitability in Medicine was not adjudged properly and in case it would have been examined by a team of experts, in that eventuality, the petitioner would have I got selected. 7. The respondents have denied the averments and resisted the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has participated in the selection process, cannot question the constitution of the Selection Committee and is caught by law of estoppel and cannot turn around after he has failed to make the grade. It is averred in the reply, that he was duly assessed and evaluated by the members of the Selection Committee, who were assisted by eminent expert. 8. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder. It is stated that as per the information sought by him under RTI Act, admittedly, he has been given zero mark for special attribution and 0.75 marks for experience and has not given any marks for publications. It is submitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that he had annexed 15 publications with his Application Form which is substantiated by annexures appended to and forming annexure R2 to the rejoinder affidavit and that, as per the rules in vogue, he was entitled to be given 05 marks for those 15 publications. Further, in paragraph 4, running page 4 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had also annexed experience certificates as Registrar on account of which the petitioner was entitled to be given two marks under the head experience, which, too, has not been given to the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has given the details as to how he was entitled to be given 72 marks. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant paragraph 4 herein, which reads: "4. In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has given the details as to how he was entitled to be given 72 marks. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant paragraph 4 herein, which reads: "4. That the petitioner had annexed experience certificates with his Application Form and petitioner had three years nine months experience as Registrar (01.04.2004 to 28.02.2005 and 08.07.2006 to 25.05.2009 against as Registrar) and one year fellowship in Cardiology, which also had to be counted as experience, but those experience certificates have not been taken into consideration. The petitioner is discharging duties of a lecturer in CMS Srinagar with effect from 09.02.2010 till date, but that experience also has not been taken into consideration. The fellowship in Cardiology i.e. one year's course has not been taken inn to consider as higher qualification also. On account of experience also the petitioner was entitled to be given two (2) marks more but it seems that the said experience certificates of the petitioner have not been taken into consideration at the time of calculation of marks and have not been shown to the Expert Member. The petitioner has three years nine months experience as Registrar and experience as Lecturer from 09.02.2010 i.e. three months more upto 04.06.2010 and near about six (6) months more upto 26.08.2010, but he has been given 0.75 marks for experience. The petitioner's merit deserves to be calculated on the basis of said certificates as under: 30+2+2+5+33= 72 On the basis of said merit he was entitled to be selected and appointed in CMS Jammu but unfortunately, the respondents have committed grave illegality in not including his merit for publications and experience and fellowship. It is necessary to mention here that the fellowship course is equal to PG diploma in accordance with Rules." 9. The respondents have filed the response to the rejoinder. Respondents have stated that whatever the petitioner has produced at the time of interview was taken into account and weightage to the experience has been given. It is seen that respondents have neither in the counter affidavit nor in response to the rejoinder affidavit stated as to whether any marks were given under head publications. 10. Respondents have stated that whatever the petitioner has produced at the time of interview was taken into account and weightage to the experience has been given. It is seen that respondents have neither in the counter affidavit nor in response to the rejoinder affidavit stated as to whether any marks were given under head publications. 10. Admittedly, no marks have been given under the head publications, i.e., special attribution, which is not denied by the official respondents in the counter or in the supplementary affidavit filed in response to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, which is disclosed by the record also. 11. Apart from what is said hereinabove, while perusing the record produced by the Commission, it is noticed that the marks awarded to the candidates under the head viva voce do not contain the details as to how many marks were awarded by the Expert and how many were given by the Members of the Selection Committee. 12. It is specifically averred in the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 6 that one post of Lecturer in Medicine is still available which has remained unfilled so far and official respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner against the said post. 13. In the aforementioned backdrop, and in view of peculiar circumstances of this case and in the interests of justice, without disturbing the selection already made by the Commission, I deem it proper to direct the Commission to examine the case of the petitioner afresh after obtaining opinion from an expert body as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any marks for 15 publications, besides the experience gained by him, as is discussed hereinabove and if so, the petitioner should be given the requisite marks. And after award of such marks, if he makes the grade, he shall be considered for selection/appointment against the post which was directed to be kept vacant in terms of order dated 21.07.2011, or against any other available vacancy. This exercise shall be done by the respondents within six weeks from today. The record produced by Mr. A. M. Magray, learned Sr. AAG, is returned to him in the open Court. 14. Disposed of along with CMPs. However, there will be no order as to costs.