The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of natural justice and the rule against bias in the selection process, as well as the need for fairness and equality in accordance with the recruitment rules and orders in vogue.

1. Impugned in this petition is the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 to 43 as Junior Engineers (Electrical) on contractual basis in District Doda made by respondent No.1 vide Order No 404-DCP of 2006 dated 31.08.2006, Order No. 424-DCP of 2006 dated 18.09.2006 and Order No.526-DCP of 2006 dated 27.11.2006.

2. Before I take up for consideration the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner to assail the impugned appointments, it would be appropriate to briefly take note of the factual antecedents leading to filing of this petition.

3. Vide Notification No.03 of 2006 dated 27.06.2006 issued by respondent No.2, the applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up different posts including the posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) on contractual basis for a period of one year. The break-up of the posts given in the Notification was as under :-

i. Public Works Department (Roads &Bridges)-Junior Engineer(Electrical): 4500-7000.
     

ii. Power Development Department Junior Engineer (Electrical): 4500-7000.
     

The qualification prescribed for the post was as under :-

“Degree/three years diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized Institute.”

4. The petitioner claiming to hold a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Jammu and otherwise eligible in terms of the Advertisement Notification submitted his application form for the post-in-question. The petitioner also claims the benefit of reserved category, i.e, RBA. Besides the petitioner, several other candidates claiming to be possessed of eligibility, applied for the posts-in-question. The selection was conducted by the respondents by adopting the following selection criteria:-

5. The eligible candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee in which respondent No.3 participated as an Expert Member. On the conclusion of the process of viva-voce, general merit list of the candidates was prepared and on the basis of merit obtained by the eligible candidates evaluated in terms of the selection criteria, a select list was issued in which 28 candidates in the open, 07 in SC, 09 in RBA and 01 in ALC categories came to be selected. Consequently, vide impugned order, all the 45 candidates belonging to different categories were appointed. The petitioner could not make it to the select list as he could only secured 53.56 points in the selection whereas the merit of the candidates last selected under RBA category was 56.78 marks. This is how the petitioner came to be excluded from the zone of selection.

6. Having faced exclusion from the select list and feeling aggrieved of the manner in which the selection is conducted, the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant petition. The selection and appointment of respondents No. 5 to 43 (hereinafter referred to as private respondents) has been called-in-question primarily on the following grounds :-

(i) That the entire selection is vitiated by the fact that the Expert Member in the Selection Committee, i.e., respondent No.3 was not qualified to be the member of such Committee, inasmuch as, his own son, i.e., respondent No.7 was one of the candidates participating in the selection process;

(ii) That the selection criteria adopted by the official respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, respondent No.2 has treated the degree holders and diploma holders at par for evaluating the points earmarked for academic qualification;

(iii) That some of the selected candidates, more particularly, the respondents No. 5 and 6 were neither possessing a degree nor a diploma in the Electrical Engineering but were considered on the ba