Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 229 (JK)

Sanjay Kumar Bhagat v. State of J. &K.

2017-05-05

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
ORDER : Tashi Rabstan, J. Through the medium of this writ petition, mainly petitioner is seeking quashment of Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015 issued by J&K Public Service Commission, so far as it pertains to filling-up one post of Lecturer in the discipline of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, figuring as Item No.224 under RBA Category in Indira Gandhi Govt. Dental College, Jammu, on the ground that the same ought to have been reserved and filled-up from amongst the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category in terms of Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. 2. The facts-in-brief, as gathered from the writ record, are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, having qualification of Master- s in Dental Surgery in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and is working as Registrar since 2011 in the Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Govt. Dental College, Jammu. 3. It is averred that the official respondents in the year 2006 issued Notification No.03-PSC of 2006, wherein amongst other posts of Lecturers, applications were also invited for fillings up two posts of Lecturers in Oral Surgery-one each under RBA Category and Physically Handicapped Category, against which one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be appointed under RBA Category, whereas the vacancy meant for Physically Handicapped Candidate remained unfilled. 4. In the year 2010, official respondents issued Notification No.16-PSC of 2010, wherein amongst other posts, one post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under Open Merit came to be advertised, and against the said post one Dr. Roopav Nargotra came to be appointed. 5. Again in 2011, amongst other posts, one post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category, came to be advertised vide Notification No.23-PSC of 2011. However, as per the writ record, the selection in Oral Surgery could not be concluded because of non-availability of any candidate under the RBA Category. Once again the official respondents issued Notification No.02-PSC (DR-P) of 2013, dated 19.02.2013, whereby two posts of Lecturers in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery came to be advertised - one under RBA Category and another under Open Merit. However, the said notification came to be withdrawn by the Public Service Commission vide communication, dated 26.03.2013. 6. Thereafter, the official respondents issued Notification No.05-PSC of 2014, where-in amongst other posts, again one post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category came to be advertised. However, the said notification came to be withdrawn by the Public Service Commission vide communication, dated 26.03.2013. 6. Thereafter, the official respondents issued Notification No.05-PSC of 2014, where-in amongst other posts, again one post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category came to be advertised. Petitioner herein challenged the said notification by way of SWP No. 1059/2014, so far as it pertained to one post of Lecturer in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery under RBA Category. Public Service Commission filed reply to SWP No.1059/2014 on 01.08.2014, wherein the stand of respondent-Commission was that in response to notification of 2014 none of the candidates had applied for the post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category. The said writ petition is still pending and has been clubbed with the present writ petition. 7. During the pendency of SWP No. 1059/2014, the official respondents again issued Notification No.06-PSC (DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015, impugned herein, wherein amongst other posts of Lecturers, one post of Lecturer in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery under RBA Category came to be advertised. Against this notification, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. The grievance of petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that since the year 2006, the official respondents, in all, issued as many as six different notifications for, amongst other posts, filling up posts of Lecturers in Oral Surgery - one under Open Merit, one under Physically Handicapped Category and rest under RBA Category, whereas, as per the roster point, the 3rd post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery ought to have been filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. Since the official respondents have failed to do so, the same is in violation of Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. 9. The contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in the year 2006 one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be appointed as Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category, thereafter one Dr. Roopav Nargotra came to be appointed as such under Open Merit in the year 2010, and, now again, in pursuance to impugned notification, one Dr. 9. The contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in the year 2006 one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be appointed as Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category, thereafter one Dr. Roopav Nargotra came to be appointed as such under Open Merit in the year 2010, and, now again, in pursuance to impugned notification, one Dr. Amrit Pal Singh, respondent No.3 herein, came to be recommended by the respondent-Commission for his appointment as Lecturer in Oral Surgery under the RBA Category, whereas, as per roster point under the Reservation Rules, the 3rd post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery ought to have been filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. 10. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. 11. In the objections filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is averred that the petitioner has no right to claim for the post-in-question, as selection in pursuance to impugned notification under RBA Category has already been made by the respondent-Commission vide Notification No.20-PSC (DR-S) of 2015, dated 20.10.2015 and communicated to respondent No.1 vide communication, dated 29.10.2015, wherein one Dr. Amrit Pal Singh, respondent No.3 herein, has been recommended for appointment as Lecturer in Oral Surgery under the RBA Category. 12. On. behalf of respondent No. 1, it is averred that keeping in view the small size of faculty at the time when Government Dental College, Jammu came to be established in the year 2004, it was decided by the Government to apply institutional-wise roster instead of faculty-wise roster, as such all the posts of Lecturers of different disciplines were clubbed together as one class for the purpose of applicability of roster and notified accordingly thereby applying institutional-wise roster. Accordingly, as per institutional-wise roster, one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be appointed as Lecturer in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery under RBA Category in the year 2006. Further, it is averred that the sanctioned strength of the post of Lecturer in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery is 02 and when Dr. Parveen was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor, the post was advertised in Open Merit Category and one Dr. Roopav Nargotra came to be appointed in the year 2010. Further, it is averred that by the year 2012 due to new creations, the number of members of each faculty had increased and a decision was taken to apply roster faculty-wise to each post. Roopav Nargotra came to be appointed in the year 2010. Further, it is averred that by the year 2012 due to new creations, the number of members of each faculty had increased and a decision was taken to apply roster faculty-wise to each post. Thus, it is averred that since one post was occupied by Dr. Roopav Nargotra under Open Merit Category, accordingly a decision was taken to notify the 2nd post under RBA Category as per roster provided under the J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005 and this is how the impugned notification came to be issued, where under respondent No.3 has been recommended by the respondent-Commission for his appointment as Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category. As such, it is averred that respondent No.1 has been strictly adhering to the Reservation Rules of 2005, viz., first post was filled under Open Merit Category in Oral Surgery, whereby Dr. Roopan Nargaotra came to be appointed, second one has been recommended to be filled under RBA Category by selection of respondent No.3 herein, and now.. Notification No.16-PSC (DR-P) of 2016, dated 10.08.2016 has been issued where under one post in Scheduled Caste Category in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery has been notified. 13. Respondent No.3 in the objections has taken the same stand as has been taken by respondent No.1. 14. Public Service Commission, respondent No.2 herein, in the objections filed has averred that it has no role to play in the matter of maintenance of roster of any cadre or category, which in terms of the rules is the sole responsibility of concerned Administrative Department, and that the Commission only undertakes the task of selecting candidates against various gazetted posts referred to by the concerned Administrative Departments. 15. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties and perused the file. 16. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005 here under: 5. Roster for direct recruitment (1) With a view to giving effect to the reservation here in before provided in this part, the appointing authority shall, in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts under the State, maintain a roster of 100 vacancies in the form given hereinafter:- 1. Open competition 2. Backward area 3. Roster for direct recruitment (1) With a view to giving effect to the reservation here in before provided in this part, the appointing authority shall, in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts under the State, maintain a roster of 100 vacancies in the form given hereinafter:- 1. Open competition 2. Backward area 3. Scheduled Caste 4 to 100 (2) The roster shall be maintained as a running account from year to year and will start at the commencement of a year at the point following the point which was utilized at the end of the previous year: Provided that where the last point utilized in the preceding year was a reserved point and was treated as unreserved for want of a suitable candidate from the reserved class, the first point to be started as aforesaid shall be the reserved point: Provided further that where, on any occasion of selection in any year, a reserved vacancy is treated as unreserved for want of a suitable candidate from the reserved category, the succeeding unreserved vacancy shall on the next occasion of selection in that year be treated as reserved. (3) The roster register shall be maintained as per the details given in Annexure-E.' 17. The main grievance of petitioner is that the official respondents, particularly respondent No.1, while notifying/referring the vacancies under various disciplines including the discipline of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in Govt. Dental College, Jammu, have not been following the reservation roster in terms of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005, as a result of which he despite being eligible under the Scheduled Caste Category could not apply for the post of Lecturer in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in pursuance to the impugned notification. His further grievance is that in pursuance to the impugned notification, the official respondents were required to notify the post-in-question under the Scheduled Caste Category in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules; however, they notified the same under RBA Category dehors the rules, thus the petitioner has been deprived to apply for the post-in-question. 18. His further grievance is that in pursuance to the impugned notification, the official respondents were required to notify the post-in-question under the Scheduled Caste Category in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules; however, they notified the same under RBA Category dehors the rules, thus the petitioner has been deprived to apply for the post-in-question. 18. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not disputed the eligibility of petitioner to apply for the post-in-question nor denied applicability of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, rather the stand of respondent No.1 is that in view of small size of faculty at the time when Government Dental College, Jammu came to be established in the year 2004, it was decided by the Government to apply institution-wise roster instead of faculty-wise roster by clubbing all the posts of Lecturers of different disciplines as ' one class for the purpose of applicability of roster; meaning thereby respondent No.1 has itself admitted that it was not adhering to reservation roster strictly in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules. 19. Rule 5 of Reservation Rules clearly provides that the appointing authority has to maintain the roster in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts; meaning thereby respondent No.1 was required to maintain a separate reservation roster in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts, therefore, no question arises nor there is any such provision in the J.&K. Reservation Rules to apply roster institution-wise by clubbing ail the posts of Lecturers of different disciplines as one class for the purpose of applicability of roster. Respondent No.1 was not expected to apply the reservation roster and refer the vacancies to Public Service Commission as per its own whim and caprice. Since respondent No.1 has not been maintaining the reservation roster in its real essence and in the right perspective in terms of Reservation Rules, anything contrary to rule position cannot stand the scrutiny of law, reasons and logic. 20. Since respondent No.1 has not been maintaining the reservation roster in its real essence and in the right perspective in terms of Reservation Rules, anything contrary to rule position cannot stand the scrutiny of law, reasons and logic. 20. As regards the plea of small size of faculty at the time when Government Dental College, Jammu came to be established in the year 2004 and so institution-wise reservation roster was being applied, Rule 5(2) of Reservation Rules clearly provides that the roster shall be maintained as a running account from year to year and will start at the commencement of a year at the point following the point which was utilized at the end of the previous year. Therefore, no question arises to apply the reservation roster in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules only if there would have been maximum number of vacancies in each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts under the State, rather Rule-5(2) is amply clear in itself that even if there would have been one post in each service, class, category and grade in the services; the reservation roster can well be maintained being a running account from year to year and will start at the commencement of a year at the point following the point which was utilized at the end of the previous year. Therefore, there ought not to have any hitch on the part of respondent No.1 in maintaining the roster strictly in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules. Respondent No.1, as such, is expected not to take such like clumsy pleas and make mockery of the system. 21. Further, when one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be appointed in the year 2006 vide Notification No.03-PSC of 2006, two posts of Lecturers in Oral Surgery had been notified; meaning thereby at that time the sanctioned strength of the post in Oral Surgery was two. In the present petition, objections by respondent No.1, supported by affidavit, came to be filed on 21.01.2017, wherein respondent No.1 has itself stated that the sanctioned strength of Lecturers in Oral Surgery is two; meaning thereby respondent No.1 had deposed falsely that in view of small size of faculty institution-wise roster was being applied till 2012, when with increase in posts it was decided to apply roster faculty-wise. Otherwise too, in view of Rule 5(2) of Reservation Rules, as discussed above, respondent No.1 was legally bound to apply faculty-wise roster irrespective of the sanctioned strength of posts in each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts. 22. Again, the specific stand of respondent No.1 in the objections, supported by affidavit, is that in view of small size of faculty, institution-wise roster was being applied by clubbing all the posts of Lecturers of different disciplines as one class for the purpose of applicability of reservation roster. However, when one goes through notifications issued by the Public Service Commission, it comes to fore that what respondent No.1 has been claiming is nothing but a false statement just to be fool the Court. Notification No.16-PSC of 2010, dated 03.12.2010 reveals that only one post of Lecturer in Operative Dentistry under RBA Category had been advertised for Govt. Dental College, Srinagar and rest were in Open Merit Category in different disciplines. 23. Notification No.23-PSC of 2011, dated 09.12.2011 reveals that again one post of Lecturer in Oral & Maxillofacial under RBA Category had been advertised and rest were in Open Merit Category of different disciplines. 24. Notification No.02-PSC (DR-P) of 2013, dated 19.02.2013 reveals that two posts of Lecturers under RBA Category had been advertised for Jammu as well as Srinagar Government Dental Colleges, whereas rest were in Open Merit Category of different disciplines. 25. Notification No.05-PSC (DR-P) of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 reveals that as many as nine posts of Lecturers under RBA Category of different disciplines for Jammu as well as Srinagar Government Dental Colleges were advertised, whereas rest were in Open Merit Category of different disciplines. 26. Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015, impugned herein, reveals that as many as seven posts of Lecturers under RBA Category of different disciplines for Jammu as well as Srinagar Government Dental Colleges were advertised, whereas rest were in Open Merit Category of different disciplines. 27. 26. Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015, impugned herein, reveals that as many as seven posts of Lecturers under RBA Category of different disciplines for Jammu as well as Srinagar Government Dental Colleges were advertised, whereas rest were in Open Merit Category of different disciplines. 27. Thus, these notifications itself belie the claim of respondent No.1 that institution-wise roster was being applied (though the same was not legally permissible as per Reservation Rules), because in none of the above-referred notifications, except RBA Category, no representation had been given to other reserved categories including the Scheduled Caste Category in the matter of appointment in Government Dental Colleges, Jammu and Srinagar neither as per institution-wise roster as claimed by respondent No.1 nor in terms of Rule 5 of Reservation Rules. Thus, from the above discussion, it seems respondent No.1 knowing fully well has wilfully made false statements in the objections, supported by affidavit. Respondent No.1, therefore, seems to be guilty of committing the offence of perjury. 28. Further, on one hand, the stand of respondent No.1 at page 6 of objections is that the selections were being made institutional-wise strictly as per the roster point as provided under SRO 294 of 2005, whereas, on the other hand, at page 5 of the objections, it has been stated that respondent No.1 realized that reservation roster was required to be followed in terms of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005, as such the same was required to be set right so as to avoid any confusion or complication in future; meaning thereby respondent No.1 was in know of the fact that J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005 were not being rightly applied right from the year 2006 when one Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone came to be selected for the post of Lecturer in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery under the RBA Category, whereas the said post was required to be filled-up from amongst the candidates belonging to Open Merit Category. And, that is why at bottom of page 6 of objection, it is averred on behalf of respondent No.1 that assuming the post of Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone under the RBA Category was not rightly filled, the error committed in making her appointment has been rectified by filling the said vacancy after the promotion of said Dr. Parveen Lone. 29. And, that is why at bottom of page 6 of objection, it is averred on behalf of respondent No.1 that assuming the post of Dr. Parveen Akhter Lone under the RBA Category was not rightly filled, the error committed in making her appointment has been rectified by filling the said vacancy after the promotion of said Dr. Parveen Lone. 29. The next stand of learned counsel for respondents 1 & 3, as taken in the objections, is that since no interim direction was issued by this Court in SWP No.1059/2014 filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Notification No.05-PSC of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 for selection against the post-in-question; therefore, there was nothing wrong in proceeding with the selection process and making selection of respondent No.3 under RBA Category. 30. Since learned counsel for respondents 1 & 3 had taken the shelter/cover of interim order, dated 29.04.1014 passed in SWP No. 1059/2014 to justify the selection of respondent No.3 in pursuance to impugned Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of order, dated 29.04.2014 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court: In the meantime, as ad interim, subject to objections and till next date, recruitment process and selection if any, against the post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery pursuant to advertisement Notice No.OS-PSC(DR-P) of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 shall remain subject to further order in the CMA. 31. The said order clearly reveals that the recruitment process and selection, if any, against the post-in-question was subject to further order in the CMA; meaning thereby, although as per the above-quoted order, the official respondents were free to go ahead with the recruitment process and make selection, however, the same was subject to further orders by this Court. Therefore, the official respondents have no right to claim that since they had been given liberty by the court in SWP No.1059/2014 to go ahead with the recruitment process and make selection, if any, the petitioner has no right to question the impugned notification or the selection of respondent No.3, even if the same has been made against the rules. Therefore, the official respondents have no right to claim that since they had been given liberty by the court in SWP No.1059/2014 to go ahead with the recruitment process and make selection, if any, the petitioner has no right to question the impugned notification or the selection of respondent No.3, even if the same has been made against the rules. Further, as per respondent No.2, when none of the candidates had applied in pursuance to Notification No.05-PSC of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 for the post of Lecturer in Oral Surgery under RBA Category, Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015, impugned herein, came to be issued for the same post. Therefore, for all practical purposes Notification No.05-PSC of 2014 cannot be said to be different from that of Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015. 32. Now, I come to the pleading of learned counsel for respondent No.3, which he has also taken in the objections, that the present petition is not maintainable simply on the ground that when the petitioner had filed the present petition on 24th/25th October, 2015 seeking quashing of the impugned notification, the Public Service Commission had already selected respondent No.3 vide Notification No.20-PSC (DR-S) of 2015, dated 20.10.2015. 33. The writ record reveals that the present writ petition was not filed on 24th/25th October, 2015, rather the same came to be filed by the petitioner on 08.09.2015, which, for the first time, came to be listed before the Court on 09.09.2015-when notice of motion was issued for 26.10.2015. Meanwhile, petitioner filed MP No.02/205 seeking to stay notification, dated 09.10.2015, whereby interview for the post-in-question had been fixed for 20.10.2015. The said application was listed on 16.10.2015; however the matter could not be reached for hearing and was directed to be listed on 26.10.2015. When the matter was taken up on 26.10.2015, it was directed that till further orders no appointment shall be made in the discipline of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery pursuant to Notification No.06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015. Therefore, it would be wrong to assert that when the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, Public Service Commission had already selected respondent No. 3 for the post-in-question, rather when the petitioner had filed the present petition; the Public Service Commission had not even conducted the interview of respondent No. 3 for selection against the post-in-question. 34. Therefore, it would be wrong to assert that when the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, Public Service Commission had already selected respondent No. 3 for the post-in-question, rather when the petitioner had filed the present petition; the Public Service Commission had not even conducted the interview of respondent No. 3 for selection against the post-in-question. 34. Although the petitioner had filed the present petition on 08.09.2015, however, before passing of interim direction on 26.10.2015, in pursuance to the impugned notification, the Public Service Commission conducted the interview for the post-in-question on 20.10.2015 and on the same very date selected respondent No. 3 vide Notification No.20-PSC (DR-S) of 2015, dated 20.10.2015; accordingly it recommended the name of one Dr. Amrit Pal Singh to respondent No. 1 for his appointment as Lecturer in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery under RBA Category vide communication, dated 29.10.2015. 35. Since the interim order, dated 26.10.2015 was operating against said Dr. Amrit Pal Singh, he filed MP No. 04/2015 on 17.12.2015 for his impleadment as party respondent in the present petition. The said application came to be allowed on 10.11.2016 and he came to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the present petition. 36. Therefore, in view of above discussion and clear rule position, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Notification No. 06-PSC(DR-P) of 2015, dated 05.06.2015 issued by J.&K. Public Service Commission, so far as it pertains to filling-up one post of Lecturer in the discipline of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, figuring as Item No.224 under RBA Category in Indira Gandhi Govt. Dental College, Jammu, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the selection of respondent No.3 against the said post shall be deemed to have been quashed. Henceforth, the State Government is directed to strictly follow Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules in the matter of appointments and maintain roster in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts under the State. 37. In view of quashing of impugned notification as well as selection of respondent No.3; respondent No.1 is directed to refer the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery under Scheduled Caste Category strictly in terms of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005 to the Public Service Commission within a period of four weeks from today. In view of quashing of impugned notification as well as selection of respondent No.3; respondent No.1 is directed to refer the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery under Scheduled Caste Category strictly in terms of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005 to the Public Service Commission within a period of four weeks from today. On referring the said post, Public Service Commission is directed to notify the same within a period of next two weeks. On notifying the said post, petitioner will also be at liberty to apply for the same along with other eligible candidates, if any. It is made clear that in case petitioner applies and gets selected against the post-in-question, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority etc. minus the monetary benefits from the date; Notification No.OS-PSC of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 came to be issued, provided he was otherwise eligible on the said date. Further, it is made clear that in case the petitioner has already applied in pursuance to Notification No.16-PSC (DR-P) of 2016, dated 10.08.2016, then there is no need to issue fresh notification for the post-in-question, however, rest of the above-referred directions-shall remain the same and, in such an eventuality too, the candidature of petitioner shall be considered from the date, Notification No.05-PSC of 2014, dated 03.03.2014 came to be issued. 38. Before parting, I would like to project the concern of Court that in many cases it is being observed that the stand of State-respondents is either evasive or without any footing, and even they go to the extent of making false statements so as to justify their illegal acts, as in the present case, without bothering that their such statements are supported by affidavits and can be held liable for committing perjury. 39. In the present case, petitioner has been hankering for justice for years together for getting his due and rightful claim, so he cannot be made scapegoat for no fault of him. After referring the post-in-question by respondent No.1 under the RBA Category dehors the rules, respondent No.2 notified the same and respondent No.3 applied against the said post, although he was not eligible in terms of the roster point, whereas petitioner had been rightly clamouring for filling up the said post under the Scheduled Caste Category in terms of Rule 5 of J.&K. Reservation Rules, 2005. Here, the perpetrator of wrong doer was respondent No. 1 and for the illegal acts of respondent No.1, petitioner has been made to suffer. Since respondent No.3 was the actual beneficiary of the illegal acts of respondent No.1, therefore, for setting the things right, this Court had no option but to quash the selection of respondent No.3. Further, at this stage, respondent No.1 cannot take the shelter of Notification No.,16-PSC(DR-P) of 2016, dated 10.08.2016, because same was the result of SWPs No. 1059/2014 and 2522/2015, filed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, in the given circumstances, respondent No.1 is burdened with costs of rupees one lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-), 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, it is made clear that in case respondent No.1 fails to deposit the costs within the aforesaid period Registrar (Judicial) is directed to frame a separate robkar against respondent No.1 for defying the orders of this Court and committing perjury by the concerned officer, and after issuance of notice to respondent No.1 and the concerned officer swearing affidavit, list the same before the Court. 40. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No.1 as well as Chief Secretary of the State for compliance. B. SWP No.1059/2014 41. In view of allowing of SWP No.2522/2015, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, disposed of along with miscellaneous petition(s), if any.