The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 51 of the 1980 Rules, specifically regarding the awarding of additional marks for higher qualification. The court clarified that the qualification for additional marks should be higher than the minimum prescribed qualification and not merely an additional qualification.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 10.06.2011, whereby writ petition bearing SWP No. 163/ 2011 filed by the respondent Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad has been allowed. For the similarity of issues involved in both the cases, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by his common judgment.

2. We have perused the record.

3. Facts, which are necessary to dispose of these appeals, are, briefly, these:

3.1. Vide vacancy Notification No. 9-PSC of 2010 dated 26.08.2010 inter alia six vacancies of lecturer in Anesthesiology in the Government Medical College, Jammu were advertised by the appellant-Jammu and Kashmir, Public Service Commission (for short the Commission). Category wise breakup of the vacancies was as under:

1. O.M = 4

2. RBA = 1

3. ST = 1

Total = 6

3.2. Appellant, Dr. Ajay Kumar (herein after referred to as the appellant) and respondent, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed (herein after referred to as the writ petitioner) applied for the vacancy under RBA Category. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the vacancy Notification, selection process was completed and the Commission notified the select list vide Notice dated 12.01.2011. Appellant came to be selected under the RBA category. The writ petitioner was not. On the recommendation of the Commission, appellant has been appointed as Lecturer in the Government Medical College, Jammu vide Government Order No. 79 HMC of 2011 dated 28.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner challenged the selection and the appointment of appellant in the writ petition No. 163/2011, which came to be allowed vide the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge. Appellant as well as the Commission, have assailed the judgment and order of the learned single Judge in these Letters Patent Appeal.

3.3. The essential eligibility qualification for the post of Lecturer in Anesthesiology given in the vacancy Notification was `MD/MS (Anesthesiology) DFACS Specialty Board of Anesthesiology (USA) or equivalent qualification'. Besides the qualification, eligibility also required experience `as Registrar/Tutor, Demonstrator/Tutor or a Senior Resident for a period of two years in a recognized Teaching Medical Institution recognized by Medical Counsel of India or the University of Jammu/Kashmir. The teaching experience, if any, gained before or during post graduation studentship shall not be considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer'.

4. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner as also the appellant at the relevant time were possessed of the minimum eligibility qualification as they both are MD (Anesthesiology). It is also not disputed that both of them possessed the requisite experience too. Dispute, however, has arisen as regards the benefit of additional marks for higher qualification as contemplated under Rule 51 (B) (ii) of the Jammu and Kashmir, Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (for short, the 1980 Rules).

5. It may be important to state here, before proceeding ahead, that the 1980 Rules are the regulatory procedural rules framed by the Commission for conduct of its business. Rule 51 of these Rules govern the process of assessment at the selection, which is solely by means of an interview, like the one involved in this case. Perusal of Rule 51 as amended from time to time would show that, besides assigning marks for performance of a candidate in the viva-voce test, percentage of marks obtained in the minimum eligibility qualification and the experience prescribed for the post as per the concerned service rules, reflected in the vacancy Notification, under par (ii) of the Rule, provision is made for allotting marks for Higher Qualification.

6. Dispute, as a matter of fact, relates to the availability of two marks to the writ petitioner for two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology possessed by him. It, however, is undisputed that the writ petitioner is