JUDGMENT :

Rahul Bharti, J.

Heard Mr. F.A. Natnoo, learned counsel, representing the petitioner J&K Public Service Commission, and also Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate, for the respondent-caveator.

2. The present writ petition, at its very inception hearing, self-suggests a preliminary objection as to the locus standi of the petitioner J&K Public Service Commission (J&K PSC in short) to challenge the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

3. The background factual scenario leading to the filing of the present writ petition needs to be stated for the basis constraining the examination of the locus standi of the petitioner J&K PSC in the matter.

4. Vide a selection advertisement no. 03-PSC (DR) of 2016 dated 19/02/2016, carried out by the petitioner J&K PSC, a selection process for appointment to a single post of Lecturer, Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Govt. Medical College (GMC), Jammu in open merit category was undertaken.

5. In response to said advertisement, the selection process culminated in issuance of a selection notification no. 01-PSC (DR-S) of 2018 dated 09/02/2018 thereby declaring the proforma respondent no. 5 herein, namely Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir, as being selected by the petitioner J&K PSC. There were only three eligible candidates who had competed for the selection and called by the J&K PSC for the interview held on 23/01/2018 in which one absented leaving only two that is the proforma respondent no. 5 Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir and the respondent herein Dr. Rajeev Gupta in the fray. The selection of the proforma respondent no. 5 Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir meant a consequent recommendation by the petitioner J&K PSC to the Health & Medical Education Department of the Govt. of the then State of J&K, for his appointment to the post.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the selection and recommendation of the proforma respondent no. 5 Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir, and his consequent non-selection, the respondent Dr. Rajeev Gupta, came to challenge the said selection cum recommendation of the proforma respondent no. 5 Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir and consequently staked his claim for the selection by medium of a writ petition SWP no. 1442/2018 before this Court, then being the High Court of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, competent to deal with service cum selection matter related writ(s) filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.

7. In the writ petition, the respondent Dr. Rajeev Gupta had claimed the relief of quashing the selection of the proforma respondent Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir and for consequent direction to consider his i.e., Dr. Rajeev Gupta’s case. The reliefs sought in his writ petitioner by the respondent Dr. Rajeev Gupta was as follow:-

“Writ of Certiorari whereby quashing the selection/appointment of private respondent in terms of notification bearing no. 01-PSC (DR) of 2018 dated 09/02/2018;

Further writ of mandamus whereby directing the respondents (PSC) to select and recommend the case of the petitioner, being more experienced and highly qualified and recommend the case of the petitioner of official respondents for selection/appointment lecturer in Medical Oncology in Super Speciality Hospital, GMC Jammu.

And

Any other order/direction...”

8. In his writ petition, the respondent Dr. Rajeev Gupta had impleaded as respondent no. 4 & 5 the two members of the interview committee who were experts. The stated reason for doing so was that the selection of the proforma respondent Dr. Mohd. Hassan Mir was being assailed on ground of bias alleged to be subsisting on account of the fact that the proforma respondent Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir was working in AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi for “Fellowship in Bone Marrow Transplantation” from 11/02/2017 to 10/02/2018 and in this course of engagement in the AIIMS New Delhi, he was the student of the respondent no. 4, one of the two named experts involved