JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of selection of respondents 5 to 7 as Laboratory Assistants in the Health Department in Udhampur District under the category of Residents of Backward Area. He is also seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him against the said post on the basis of his having better academic merit and excellent performance in interview. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that in response to Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2001, dated 11.01.2001 issued by the J & K Service Selection Board for filling up the posts of Laboratory Assistants in District Udhampur, the petitioner, amongst other candidates, also applied for the same under the category of Resident of Backward Area. The notice prescribed the minimum eligibility qualification as Matric with Diploma of Lab Assistant from S.M.F. or any other institute recognized by the J & K Government or anybody authorized by it. The petitioner claims to have possessing the qualification of 10 +2 with Diploma of Laboratory Assistant from the Jammu & Kashmir State Medical Faculty at the time of issuance of aforesaid notice. He also claims to have did well in the interview, yet he was not selected, whereas three other candidates, respondents 5 to 7 herein, having less academic merit than the petitioner came to be selected under the Category of Resident of Backward Area, thereby completely ignoring the higher and better merit of petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. This writ petition came to be filed on 2.05.2002 and was taken up on 03.05.2002, when, while issuing notice, it was directed that the selection, if any, shall be subject to the decision of the main petition. The writ petition was also admitted on the same date and the respondents were directed to file objections within four weeks of the service of notice. When private respondents 5 to 7 did not appear nor did they file counter despite service of notice upon them, they were set ex parte vide order dated 15.10.2004. Thereafter, the matter came to be listed on several occasions in all these years, but the Chairman, J & K Service Selection Board, respondent No. 4 herein, failed to file counter despite granting of many opportunities. Thereafter, the matter came to be listed on several occasions in all these years, but the Chairman, J & K Service Selection Board, respondent No. 4 herein, failed to file counter despite granting of many opportunities. However, the State as well as Director, Health Services filed the objections/counter on 29.03.2016 taking the stand that selection procedure is purely the domain of Service Selection Board for recruitment to all non-gazetted posts and only after finalization of the select list by the Service Selection Board, the intending/appointing authority issues the appointment order in favour of selected candidates. Further, it is averred that in the present case also the Service Selection Board after conducting the selection process issued the select list of Laboratory Assistants in District Udhampur, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the answering respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the pleadings. 4. Although in the objections/counter respondents 1 & 3 have taken the stand that selection procedure is purely the domain of Service Selection Board, yet not only in paragraph-1 of para wise reply, it has been averred that the petitioner being low in merit was not considered for the said post, even in paragraph-2 it has been averred that the claim of petitioner having better merit than the private respondents is against the official record. 5. As the J & K Service Selection Board has failed to put its stance before the Court since May 2002, this Court thought it imperative to call for the relevant record of selection-in-question. Accordingly, the record has been produced by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Service Selection Board. 6. I have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Select List of candidates for the post of Lab. Assistant, District Cadre Udhampur (R.B.A. Category) issued by the Service Selection Board: 09 61.08 1 Suresh Kumar S/o Dewan Chand R/o Basant Garh, Dudu, Ramnagar, Udhampur. R.B.A. 27 38 2 Shakla Banoo D/o Mohd. Ayub R/o Jamlan, Mahore, Udhampur R.B.A. 38 55.70 3 Gopal Krishan S/o Shiv Ram R/o Ghordi, Ramnagar, Udhampur R.B.A. 7. Further, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder the points/marks awarded to petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 under different heads under the RBA Category including the viva-voce points awarded by each of the Member in respect of Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2001, dated 11.01.2001: Sr. Further, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder the points/marks awarded to petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 under different heads under the RBA Category including the viva-voce points awarded by each of the Member in respect of Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2001, dated 11.01.2001: Sr. No. Name of Candidate (i) % of marks (ii) Weightage out of 80 (iii) Viva Voce (iv) Viva Voce(v) Viva Voce (vi) Total Points (iv + v+ vi) (vii) Total (iii+vii) 15 Ram Lal 62.80 50.24 10 09 09 9.33 59.57 27 Shakla Banoo 62.80 50.24 05 08 06 6.33 56.57 30 Suresh Kumar 67.60 54.08 07 07 06 6.66 60.74 38 Gopal Krishan 58.80 47.04 08 10 08 8.66 55.70 8. Respondent No. 5, Suresh Kumar had also applied for the post-in-question in response to second Advertisement Notice, bearing No. 1 of 2000 dated 21.09.2000 and the points awarded to him under different heads is reproduced hereunder: Sr. No. Name of Candidate (i) % of marks (ii) Weightage out of 80 (iii) Viva Voce (iv) Viva Voce(v) Viva Voce (vi) Total Points (iv + v+ vi) (vii) Total (iii+vii) 09 Suresh Kumar 67.60 54.08 09 06 06 07 61.08 9. Thus, the record so produced by the Service Selection Board itself shows that petitioner-Ram Lal had secured 59.57 points, whereas respondent Shakla Bano had secured 56.57 points and respondent Gopal Krishan had secured 55.70 points, i.e., both Shakla Bano and Gopal Krishan had secured less points/marks than petitioner-Ram Lal. As such, it is crystal clear that despite securing higher marks than respondents 6 and 7, the petitioner had not been selected. Even Mr. Raman Sharma, Dy. A.G., while contesting the matter had fairly made a statement in the open Court that as per the record the petitioner had secured much more marks/points than respondents 6 & 7, and as per merit position of petitioner, he ought to have been appointed against the post-in-question, the select list of which was issued in April, 2002. 10. It is a matter of grave concern that the select list was issued in April 2002 and despite securing higher marks than respondents 6 and 7, petitioner has not been selected for the post-in-question. The petitioner has been made to suffer and go through mental torture/harassment for all these years for no fault of him. 10. It is a matter of grave concern that the select list was issued in April 2002 and despite securing higher marks than respondents 6 and 7, petitioner has not been selected for the post-in-question. The petitioner has been made to suffer and go through mental torture/harassment for all these years for no fault of him. He has been hankering for justice for the last fifteen years to get his both end meals through the employment of Lab Assistant, whereas respondents 6 and 7 have been getting the usufruct of Government employment for the last sixteen years despite having secured less points than the petitioner. It is not the case of official respondents, particularly respondent No. 4 that inadvertently petitioner could not be selected or there was wrong calculation in reckoning the result of petitioner, rather the award roll clearly indicates that the petitioner had secured much more points than respondents 6 & 7 and same was the stand of Dy. A.G. in the open Court once he had gone through the record. 11. The select list was issued in April 2002 and the petitioner filed the present petition on 02.05.2002 and now it is April, 2017, thus this petition is pending for the last sixteen years. Counsel for Service Selection Board for the first time appeared in this matter on 15.10.2004, when he was directed to file the counter affidavit. However, despite granting number of opportunities for the last more than thirteen years, the officers of Service Selection Board did not bother to file the counter affidavit obviously to hide their misdeeds. Thus, one can easily understand that why the officers of Service Selection Board were not willing to file the counter affidavit for the last more than thirteen years, because they were very well in know of the fact that petitioner had stolen a march over respondents 6 and 7. And, to conceal this illegal act of theirs, they were not only playing hide and seek with the Court in the matter of filing counter affidavit, but virtually they were also playing with the whole career of petitioner, and in the melee petitioner's most crucial period of sixteen years of his life have gone waste. It is not easy, rather impossible to understand the plight of petitioner through which he has been going on for all these sixteen years. It is not easy, rather impossible to understand the plight of petitioner through which he has been going on for all these sixteen years. One can easily understand/gauge the vicious tactics of officers of Service Selection Board because on one hand they did not file the counter affidavit to put forth their stance for the last more than thirteen years, whereas, on the other hand, they provided a copy of counter affidavit to the learned counsel for petitioner, which has been drafted by Mr. M. Nadeem Bhat, the then Government Advocate and signed as well as sealed by the Administrative Officer of Service Selection Board, besides the same has also been signed by the then Government Advocate. Learned counsel for petitioner produced a photocopy of counter in the open Court, wherein the specific stand of Service Selection Board is that the selection-in-question has been made strictly on merit basis of the candidates and in accordance with the procedure established by law. This is nothing but an act of perjury. Petitioner's better merit would not have come to light had this Court not directed the Service Selection Board to produce the original selection record. 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above and the fact that petitioner had secured more marks/points than respondents 6 & 7, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner. However, at this stage it would not be appropriate to quash the selection of last selected candidate in the RBA Category, i.e., respondent-Gopal Krishan as he has been serving in the Health Department for the last sixteen years and by now he might have crossed the maximum age limit for getting Government employment. Further, for the misdeeds of officers of Service Selection Board, respondent-Gopal Krishan cannot be penalized, that too after sixteen years of his selection as Laboratory Assistant, when his whole family including children must be fully dependent upon him. Therefore, the principle of natural justice demands that humanitarian approach requires to be adopted in not quashing the selection/appointment of respondent No. 7. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in case, H.C. Puttaswamy v. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: "13. There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in case, H.C. Puttaswamy v. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: "13. There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post-graduates as against the minimum qualification of SSLC required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now over aged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream......" 16. The precedents apart, the circumstances of this case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seems to deserve justice ruled by mercy. We take note of the fact that the writ petitioners also would be appointed in the High Court as stated by learned Advocate General of the State." 13. In the present case, respondent No. 7 is in service for the last sixteen years. 14. Therefore, in the given circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Service Selection Board is directed to recommend the name of petitioner for his appointment as Laboratory Assistant within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue the order of appointment in favour of petitioner within a period of next two weeks. It is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion etc., minus the monetary benefits with effect from the date other selected candidates under RBA Category of District Udhampur, i.e., respondents 5 to 7, had joined in the year 2002 against the post of Laboratory Assistant. It is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion etc., minus the monetary benefits with effect from the date other selected candidates under RBA Category of District Udhampur, i.e., respondents 5 to 7, had joined in the year 2002 against the post of Laboratory Assistant. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to fix his seniority strictly as per his merit position in the original select list. It is further directed that in case there is no post available with the department against which the petitioner has to be posted/appointed considering his promotion factor, official respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post for the writ petitioner with effect from the date respondents 5 to 7 had joined in the year 2002. It is further directed that every recruiting agency of the State including the autonomous bodies shall henceforth publish in all leading newspapers of the State along with select list, the marks/points allotted to each selected candidate so as to make the recruitment process more ethical, clear and transparent and to avoid such like loops due to which the genuine candidates are not selected by the authorities at the helm of affairs. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), accordingly, stands disposed of. 15. Before parting, I would like to project the concern of Court that the petitioner has been denied his rightful claim and made to suffer for so long years for no fault of him. The matter is hanging in balance for the last sixteen years not only because of non-serious approach on the part of officers of Service Selection Board, but they intentionally did not file the counter affidavit before the Court to hide the true picture and kept the petitioner entangled in litigation for more than one and a half decades. Since the petitioner could not be offered appointment only because of the illegal act on the part of J & K Service Selection Board and he has been made to run from pillar to post to get his rightful due/claim during all these sixteen years, Service Selection Board is burdened with costs of rupees eighty thousands (five thousand for each year), to be deposited by it in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit, the same shall be released in favour of petitioner after proper verification and identification. On deposit, the same shall be released in favour of petitioner after proper verification and identification. It is made clear that in case the respondents fail to deposit the costs within the aforesaid period, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to frame a separate robkar against the Chairman, J & K Service Selection Board and after issuance of notice to it, list the same before the Court. 16. Further, Director, State Vigilance Organization is directed to seize the selection record of this particular case, make inquiry and if necessary, lodge FIR against the then Chairman, Members, Secretary and Administrative Officer of the Service Selection Board who were responsible in making this selection and, thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and fix responsibility. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from today and file the status report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court after the completion of two months. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director Vigilance today itself and call for the report after the expiry of two months. 17. Let copy of objections filed by J & K Service Selection Board, a copy whereof was produced by the learned counsel for petitioner in the open Court, be made part of the writ record and the same be numbered accordingly. Respondent No. 4 is also directed to preserve the complete record of this case and not to destroy/damage the same. 18. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to every Recruiting Agency of the State including autonomous bodies for doing the needful. He is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State for doing the needful at his end. Registry is directed to return the record to Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. A.G. against proper receipt.