The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the prescribed procedure, and the marks awarded in the viva-voce test should be properly documented. Proper verification of qualifications and extra weightage given to candidates is essential.

1. Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board (The Board for short) vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2008, dated 5th August 2008, invited applications from eligible candidates, for filling up amongst others 72 posts of Drug Inspector referred to it by, Health and Medical Education Department. The Advertisement Notice gave breakup of the available vacancies as also the eligibility criteria prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The Board on 26th July, 2008, notified the selection criteria for the advertised posts. The criteria was later recast and notified on 12th June 2009. Change in selection criteria was questioned in a writ petition being SWP No. 884/2009. However the Writ Court on 1st September 2009, modified ad-interim order granted earlier and allowed the respondent Board to proceed with the selection process, providing that the process would remain subject to the outcome of writ petition.

2. Be that as it may, the selection process was finalized and select list published on 8th September 2009. Petitioners in writ petitions on hand i.e. SWP Nos. 1356,1535 and 1846 of 2009, participated in the selection process, but did not find place in the select list. They aggrieved with their non-selection assail the select list on the grounds set out in the respective writ petitions.

3. Petitioners in SWP No. 1356/2009, are aggrieved that 20 points set apart for viva-voice in terms of selection criteria initially notified as well as revised selection criteria, have been awarded in an arbitrary manner and thereby merit converted into demerit. They point out that eleven of the selected candidates have been awarded 20 points, three 19 points and their selection made possible because of higher points awarded in the viva-voice. Petitioners complain that though they performed well in viva-voice, they have been awarded less than 15 points and thereby excluded from the select list. The viva-voice, it is alleged was converted into a tool to indulge in favouritism and ensure selection of favourites notwithstanding their lower merit in the qualifying examination. They are also aggrieved that expert co-opted by the Board with the selection process was MD in Pharmacology and therefore not eligible to act as an expert. It is insisted that Pharmacy and Pharmacology are two different subjects and the Board ought to have associated an expert with Post Graduate or Doctorate level qualification in Pharmacy. Petitioners insist that as the eligibility criteria for the advertised posts required qualification in Pharmacy at given level, only an expert in Pharmacy could assess their knowledge of the subject and award points, on the basis of their performance in viva-voice. The entire selection process according to petitioners deserves to be cancelled on this ground only. Petitioners on the strength of averments made seek quashment of selection of respondents 4 to 18, and selection criteria to the extent it provided for 20 marks for viva voce. They also seek a direction to respondents to conduct fresh viva voce test.

4. Petitioner in SWP No. 1535/2009, responded to the Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2008 dated 5th August 2008, offered his candidature under Open Merit Category for the post of Drug Inspector. He like petitioners in other two writ petitions participated in the selection process, but was not included in the select list notified on 8-9-2009. He aggrieved with his non-selection filed present writ petition. Petitioner's case is that he secured 40.58 points on the basis of his merit in B.Sc. Pharmacy (requisite qualification) and the Board did not add up the points awarded to him in viva-voice to the points awarded on the basis of qualification and was thereby unjustifiably excluded from the select list. He insists that he appeared before the Selection Committee and faired well in interview and expected to be selected for the advertised post on the basis of his academic record and performance in viva-voice. Petitioner po