1. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission vide notification dated 23rd June, 2003 invited applications from the candidates fulfilling eligibility criteria prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, and reflected in the notification, for 33 posts of Dental Surgeon in the Pay Scale of Rs. 800-13500 in Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. The petitioners, respondents 3 to 58 and other eligible candidates responded to the advertisement notice. The selection process was completed and list of selected candidates published on 23rd August, 2005. The selected candidates were appointed as Dental Surgeons vide Government Order No. 459-HME of 2005 dated 29.08.2005. The petitioners did not find place in the select list and therefore were not appointed as Dental Surgeons. 2. The petitioners aggrieved with their non-selection have filed the writ petition on hand. They question the selection on the grounds set out in the writ petition and seek quashment of the notification dated 23rd August, 2005 whereby the select list has been notified and the Government Order No. 459-HME of 2005 dated 29.08.2005 appointing selected candidates as Dental Surgeons in the Grade of 8000-13500. The petitioners also seek writ of certiorari quashing Rule-51 Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Rules(Business and Procedure Rules) 1980 invited vide notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004 and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to recast the merit list and declare petitioners selected as Dental Surgeons. 3. Briefly stated, petitioners' case is that in terms of Amended Rule-51 notified vide notification No. 164 of 2004 dated 25th October, 2004 weightage given to the academic merit is less than 30 marks though the Rule-51 on the first look gives an impression that 50 marks stand earmarked for academic merit. The impugned Rule, it is pleaded pushes academic merit to the back seat and leaves room for arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion in making the selection. The petitioners insist that their merit and experience has been ignored by the respondent Commission while making the selection and that the whole exercise taken by the respondent Commission is violative of Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. 4. The petitioners insist that their merit and experience has been ignored by the respondent Commission while making the selection and that the whole exercise taken by the respondent Commission is violative of Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. 4. The writ petition is resisted by the respondent Commission on the grounds that the Commission while making selection has adhered to the Constitutional mandate in as much as a level play field, has been provided to all the candidates aspiring for the advertised posts and the selection made on the basis of performance of the candidates including the petitioners and respondents 3 to 58. It is pleaded that the screening test is conducted to short list the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 and the merit obtained in the screening test does not carry any weightage for the purposes of final selection. It is insisted that merit in academics may not be decisive about suitability of a candidate and due weightage, while making selection, weight-age is to be given to the performance of the candidate in interview wherein the merit is assessed by the Members of the Commission with the assistance of expert in the field. It is pointed out that interview in the present case conducted with the assistance of an expert was aimed at assessing the merit of each candidate including his knowledge on the subject, capacity to interact, general awareness, aptitude and suitability for the job. It is pleaded that merit of all the candidates was assessed on the touchstone of a uniform criteria and marks given on the basis of academic performance and higher qualification. It is denied that Rule-51 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India and gives wide and unbridled powers to the Commission or leaves scope for conversion of merit into demerit. The petitioners, according to the respondent Commission have only a right to be considered for the advertised posts and said right has been duly respected in their case and their merit and performance assessed on the same criteria as applied to the respondents 3 to 58. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 6. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 6. It is vehemently argued by the Learned Counsel for the respondent Commission and rightly so that the petitioners having participated in the selection process knowing fully that Rule-51 Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure Rules) 1980 was to govern the selection process cannot be permitted to turn around and assail the selection criteria and Rule-51 amended vide notification No. 164 of 2004 dated 25th October, 2004 after they fail to make the grade. The right course for the petitioners in the present case was to question Rule-51 in case they had reason to believe that Rule-51 was in conflict with mandate of Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India and get the selection process deferred till their claim was dealt with. However, once the petitioners decided to participate in the selection process and volunteered to be governed by the selection criteria notified by the respondent Commission, they cannot heard complaining about the selection criteria only after they failed to make the grade. The writ petition on the said ground alone is liable to be dismissed. 7. Rul-51 Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure Rules) 1980 as it stood before it's recast, tilted in favour of the performance in vivo-voce, pushing the academic merit to the back seat. This left room for arbitrariness and was therefore held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India. The judicial pronouncement prompted the respondent Commission to recast the Rule vide notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004. The recast Rule reads as under:- 51. The assessment at a selection which is soiely by means of an interview shall be based on the following principles:- A Performance of the candidate in vivo-voce test 50 marks B Academic merit (i Percentage of the marks obtained in the degree (i.e. Minimum) qualification prescribed for the post 30 marks (ii) Where bachelors degree is prescribed as minimum qualification:- a One year Post-graduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject 01 marks b Two years Post-graduate diploma in the concerned subject 02 marks c Post-graduate Degree in the concerned subject e.g. M.A/M.Sc/M.Tech/M.D/MS/M.Phill/equivalent 03 marks d Ph. D/D.M./Equivalent in the concerned subject 05 marks Where a Masters degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification ; a One year Post-graduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject 01 marks b Two years Post-graduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject 02 marks c M.Phill/Equivalent 03 marks d Ph.D/D.M./equivalent in the concerned subject 05 marks Note: Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained Where Ph.D degrees prescribed as minimum qualification :- For Post-Doctoral Degree/Fellowship Up to a maximum 05 marks C Experience acquired by the candidate in the concerned Speciality/sub speciality subject/discipline For every full year beyond eligibility requirements 01 mark subject to a maximum of 05 marks 05 marks D i. Sports/Games Distinction in Sports/Games (i.e. representing a University, State or region in any regional or national Sports/Games) Up to 03 marks ii. 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) 02 marks E Special Attributes relatable to record (to be identified). Till such attributes are identified for any post or category of posts, these marks shall be added to the Academic Merit. 05 marks 8. A bare look at Rule-51, in force as on date, would reveal that the selection criteria prescribed under the Rule gives equal weightage to performance, vivo-voce test and academic record with other attributes like experience, sports etc. The selection criteria in question, sets apart 30 marks for academic performance, 11 marks for higher qualification, where the minimum qualification is bachelors degree and Post-graduation/Masters Degree, where the minimum qualification prescribed is Ph.D Degree Weightage for Post Doctoral Degree is up to 5 marks. The selection criteria earmarks 5 marks for experience acquired by a candidate in the concerned Speciality/Sub Speciality/Discipline and one mark for every full year beyond eligibility requirement. Distinction in Sports Games and National Cadet Corps (NCC) activities, in terms of selection criteria is to earn a candidate 2 and 3 mark respectively. The marks fixed for special attributes are to be added to the marks set apart for academic merit. The academic merit therefore is to carry 35 marks. Distinction in Sports Games and National Cadet Corps (NCC) activities, in terms of selection criteria is to earn a candidate 2 and 3 mark respectively. The marks fixed for special attributes are to be added to the marks set apart for academic merit. The academic merit therefore is to carry 35 marks. It is pertinent to point out that marks to be awarded for distinction in Sports/Games or National Cadet Corps (NCC) activities are to be awarded on the basis of certificate issued by the Competent Authority in accordance with Rules and cannot be awarded on the whim of the Members of the Interview Board/Committee. This is the reason that law disfavours earmarking more than 50% marks for interview/vivo voce test as the Interviewing Committee/Board would have wide and unguided discretion to award marks more than the academic merit of a candidate and convert merit into demerit. The Interview Board/Committee as already pointed out cannot have such discretion in case of marks set apart for experience, distinction in Sports or National Cadet Corps (NCC) activities or special : attributes. The award of marks on the basis of experience etc. would depend on the certificates issued by the Competent Authority in accordance with Rules. There is thus no substance in the argument that Rule-51 earmarks more than 50 marks for interview/vivo voce and therefore is arbitrary in character and violative of Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. 9. The selection record made available would reveal that the petitioners participated in the selection process. There merit was assessed on a uniform standard also applied in case of selected candidates, and they were not able to make the grade. The petitioners therefore failed to find place in the select list not because they were exposed to any discriminary treatment but for the reason that their merit was lower than the selected candidates under the Open Merit category. The petitioners were therefore excluded from the selection list and not favoured with appointment as Dental Surgeons. 10. For the reasons discussed I am of the opinion that the writ petition is meritless and does not call for indulgence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Record is returned.