JUDGMENT 1. Assistant Commissioner Development District Programme Coordinator (MGNREGA), Udhampur, vide Advertisement Notice No. ACDU/Estt/2018/24008 dated 18.01.2018 advertised two posts of Technical Assistant (JE). The qualification prescribed was B. Tech in Civil engineering and three years diploma in Civil Engineering (From any University/Engineering College/Polytechnic College duly recognized by ACITE) in Blocks Tikri and Moungri in District Udhampur. Advertisement. Petitioner possessing the requisite qualification, applied for the post of JE pursuant to the said Advertisement Notice. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that on 23.05.2018, the Ex-Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa, Tikri informed the father of the petitioner on telephone that the interview for the post of Technical Assistant (JE) has been conducted by respondent No. 4, and also asked him, why the petitioner did not appear for the interview. This information was conveyed to the petitioner through his father, therefore, on 24.05.2018 petitioner approached the office of respondent No. 4, and was informed that the interview for the said post was conducted on 23.05.2018. Thus, according to the petitioner, only respondent No. 5 was called for interview as he is the son of the Block Development Officer, Pancheri. It is also his assertion that two other candidates, namely Parvesh Sharma and Rohit Sharma, who also had no knowledge or information about the date of interview, received information telephonically from their friends, and since they immediately approached the office of respondent No. 4, therefore, they too were interviewed. It is submitted that the date of interview was not communicated deliberately to all the candidates to facilitate the selection of respondent No. 5. 3. It is submitted that in Clause No. 14 of the application form, his telephone number was provided yet he was not informed about the interview date telephonically and no information of the date of interview was uploaded on the website, thus, precluding him from participating in the same. It is alleged that the interviews were held secretly without issuing any interview call and only with ulterior motive to appoint respondent No. 5 and exclude all other candidates from participation in the competition. 4. It is alleged that the interviews were held secretly without issuing any interview call and only with ulterior motive to appoint respondent No. 5 and exclude all other candidates from participation in the competition. 4. Another ground of challenge is that respondent No. 4 had requested Joint Director, Information to publish the Advertisement Notice in two daily leading Newspapers having wide publicity preferably Amar Ujjala and Daily Excelsior but the respondents have failed to publish interview notice in any paper, thus, the entire selection process is bad and is required to be set aside. 5. According to the petitioner, he being B. Tech, is more meritorious than all the other competing candidates and since respondent No. 5 has qualified only Diploma in Civil Engineering, therefore, there was every likelihood of selection of the petitioner against the said post. Respondent No. 5, even otherwise also, lacked basic eligibility to participate in the process since his father was not the resident of village Sundrani of Block Tikri as he had shifted from his residence and is residing in Housing Colony, Udhampur for the last 32 years. 6. Petitioner, thus, seeks quashing of the selection of respondent No. 5 as the same was made clandestinely and against the norms by denying opportunity to the petitioner, who is more meritorious, to compete for the said post. Thus, according to him, selection of respondent No. 5, thus, being illegal and arbitrary is required to be set aside. 7. Official respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in their objections stated that after sanctioning of the post of Technical Assistant, (JE) in the Rural Development Department, the same was advertised in terms of Advertisement Notice No. ACDU/Estt/2018/24008 dated 18.01.2018. Pursuant to the Advertisement Notice for the two vacant posts of Technical Assistant, (JE) Blocks Mougri and Tikri, nine candidates applied and after last date of the receipt of the applications, merit list was prepared and the same was again endorsed to the Joint Director, Information for publication in the Newspaper State Times and accordingly, the same was published in the Newspaper on 24.04.2018. In respect of this publication, eight candidates, out of nine candidates, appeared for the interview i.e., five from Block Mougri and three from Block Tikri. In respect of this publication, eight candidates, out of nine candidates, appeared for the interview i.e., five from Block Mougri and three from Block Tikri. All the candidates including two named by the petitioner i.e., Parvesh Sharma and Rohit Sharma, were interviewed by the Selection Committee and no query was ever raised in interview in this regard. It is also submitted that telephone numbers of the candidates which were required to be filled by candidates for the purpose of seeking clarification, pertaining to the documents etc. Respondents further submitted that each and every stage of the selection, process has been published in the Daily Newspaper. However, the official website of the respondents was not working for the last three years, as such, information could not be uploaded on the website. Respondents have also denied that respondent No. 5 is the resident of village. It is submitted that documents i.e., Ration Card, Voter Card, Aadhar Card and PRC showing that respondent No. 5 and his father Mohinder Singh are permanent resident of village Sundrani are enclosed. 8. Respondent No. 5 has vehemently opposed the assertions made by the petitioner. He submits that Advertisement Notice dated 18.01.2018 was published in the Newspaper State Times and answering respondent No. 5 being qualified and resident of concerned C. D. Block i. e., Tikri, had applied for being considered for appointment to the said post. Short listing criteria alongwith cut-off merit for short-listing was 45.48% in the technical qualification. As per criteria, four candidates were shortlisted in Block Tikri and answering respondent and petitioner herein both were shortlisted in terms of the short-listing criteria published on 24.04.2018 in the Newspaper State Times. 9. Vide notification No. ACDU/SS/MGNREGA/2018/2650-53 dated 12.05.2018, respondent No. 4 had issued notice for conducting interview of the shortlisted candidates both for Block Tikri as well as Block Moungri. The said notification was also given wide publicity and were also published in daily Newspaper State Times on 15.05.2018. Pursuant to the said notification, eight out of nine candidates appeared, 5 from Block Mougri and 3 from Block Tikri. It is also submitted that Telephone number of the candidates is only required for seeking clarification if any. Since the notification was published in Newspaper, State Times which is available in the area where the petitioner cannot claim that he had no knowledge of the same. 10. It is also submitted that Telephone number of the candidates is only required for seeking clarification if any. Since the notification was published in Newspaper, State Times which is available in the area where the petitioner cannot claim that he had no knowledge of the same. 10. Respondent No. 5 was selected after his interview and he was appointed on 25.05.2018 and in compliance to the appointment order, he joined on 26.05.2018 before the Block Development Officer, Tikri. Thus, respondent No. 5 had denied assertion made by the petitioner on the ground that separate publicity to both shortlisting criteria as well as interview was given in the Newspaper and except for the petitioner, all other candidates appeared for the interview process. The Selection committee interviewed the candidates on 23.05.2018 and selected respondent No. 5 for Block Tikri, whereas another candidate was selected for Block Moungri. Respondent No. 5 vehemently denied the allegation that he has been selected because his father is posted as Block Development Officer, Pancheri, as according to him, it was the Selection Committee which comprised of Project Officer, Wage Employment (District Programme Coordinator)-Chairman of the Committee, Deputy Director, Employment and Project Officer, Self Employment and an expert from the relevant department of the District to be nominated by the Chairman. After considering other two eligible candidates, respondent no. 5 was selected and appointed to the said post. 11. Respondents submit that the Advertisement Notice inviting applications for the post as well as short-listing criteria and interview notification all were published in the Newspapers, no independent call letters had been issued to any of the candidates. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed on the file. 13. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite being qualified and meritorious, he could not participate in the interview process as no information of the same was provided. The interview process was conducted in clandestinely, respondents have, thus, precluded him from participating in the same. No information about the interview was provided to him, either by issuing him call for interview or providing information for the same telephonically. However, nothing has been placed on record in support of these assertions. 14. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has nowhere mentioned that the notification for interview, shortlisting criteria and interview were duly published in the Newspaper. No information about the interview was provided to him, either by issuing him call for interview or providing information for the same telephonically. However, nothing has been placed on record in support of these assertions. 14. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has nowhere mentioned that the notification for interview, shortlisting criteria and interview were duly published in the Newspaper. He applied pursuant to the Advertisement Notice published in the Newspaper, even shortlisting as well as interview was published, therefore, cannot such accord and say that he was not called for interview. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sujata Rani versus State of J&K & others reported as 2010 (4) J.K.J. 760 vide which her selection to the post of Physical Education Teacher, was ordered only on the ground that the said interview was not given wide publicity in the Newspaper nor interview call letter was given but this judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as his entire case is that the interview dates were never published whereas record belies the same. 16. Nothing has been placed on record to show that Newspaper in which notification was published does not have wide publicity. Thus, only the petitioner had failed to appear in the interview whereas all other candidates had participated in the said interview. As respondent No. 5 in the competition had secured the highest marks, and therefore, was selected and appointed as Technical Assistant (JE) in Block Tikri. 17. Considering the fact that the advertisement notification as well as shortlisting criteria which were published in the Newspaper on 21.04.2018 and also notice for conducting of the interview has been published in the Newspaper, pursuant to which all other candidates have appeared, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was no wide publicity or he should have been given an individual interview call letter is without any merit. 18. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected IA(s).