The main legal point established in the judgment is the alignment of selection criteria with the purpose of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme and the interpretation of 'preference' in light of the Scheme's objectives.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant-writ petitioner holding that the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Medical Officer, Ayurvedic/Unani/Homeopathy had made a specific mention of the guidelines issued under National Rural Health Mission Scheme for engagement of local candidates against the vacant positions. The argument that the selection criteria was changed and the changed criteria was not made public, has been rejected. The learned Single Judge also rejected the argument that the criteria of engaging local candidates suffer from vice of arbitrariness. In that regard reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. Javed Iqbal Bhat and ors. v. State and ors decided on 26.08.2010. The Division Bench has taken notice of the purpose of the National Rural Health Mission Scheme which is based on the local criteria. The expression 'preference' has been construed in light of the object of the Scheme. The word 'preference' under the Scheme was held to mean the application of local criteria inviting the doctors who are living within the blocks and are available there. Such persons were to be given preference to achieve the purpose of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment held that no fault could be found with the action of the respondents in adopting the local criteria which has a direct nexus with the object postulated by the Scheme, namely, proper health care facility of the inhabi#31;tants of the local area where the Primary Health Centre is located. According to the learned Single Judge this could be done if preference is given to those doctors who are the residents of the local area.

2. The learned Single Judge also repelled the contention that the criteria of one year experience which was made mandatory in the first advertisement notice dated 17.08.2009 and it was subsequently changed vide notification dated 02.12.2009. The basis for rejecting the aforesaid contention was that the advertisement was issued and the criteria was made public. The appellant writ petitioner as also the other candidates who applied for the post were all well aware of the criteria. Even otherwise, no undue weightage has been given to the private respondents in the matter of selection. The norms adopted for selection were not altered after the commencement of the selection process. The learned Single Judge then held that the appellant-writ petitioner having knowledge of the changed criteria had partic#31;ipated in the selection process and having remained unsuccessful, he cannot later question the same. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Om Parkash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 283 and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and ors, AIR 2006 SCW 3136.

3. Another argument that private respondent no. 5 did not have the registration with the Board of Ayurvedic anid Unani System of Medicines, J&K in terms of Sections 16 & 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1959 (for brevity "The Act') also did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Single Judge, the advertisement dated 02.12.2009 did not require that a candidate must be registered under the Act. All that is required by the advertisement for the post of Medical Officer is that a candidate must be in possession of a degree in the concerned subject from the recognized Univer#31;sity/Medical College. In that regard, reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Navkiran Kapoor v. State of J&K and ors. LPA(SW) no. 38 of 2008 decided on 25.04.2008.

4. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel fo