JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant, having passed LL.B. (3 years degree course) from Kashmir University, was enrolled as an advocate by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir with effect from 29.1.1990. In October 1990, the appellant shifted his place of practice to Delhi and started practicing exclusively in the High Court of Delhi. In December 1992, applications were invited by J & K Public Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Munsif. One of the eligibility conditions, as laid down by Rule 9 of J & K Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 was what a candidate for recruitment to the service must have put in at least two years practice at Bar by the date on which he submits his application for such recruitment and must produce a certificate to this effect from the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he practices at the Bar. As the appellant was practicing in the High Court of Delhi, he made an application to the Registrar which according to him was the best authority suited to issue the certificate and the Registrar of the High Court of Delhi issued a certificate dated 22nd December, 1992 which recited - "On the basis of material/document made available to this court it is certified that Shri Sanjay Dhar, Advocate .... who was enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Jammu & Kashmir in January, 1990 is practicing as Advocate in Delhi service October, 1990". The certificate was submitted by the appellant alongwith his application to the Public Service Commission. On 12.3.1993, the J & K PSC informed the appellant that his application was deficient as actual practice certificate from District and Sessions Judge based on his personal knowledge or official records of courts giving relevant dates of actual practice was not produced. The appellant placed the certificate issued by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi before the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, who on 17.3.1993 counter-signed the certificate under his hand and seal. The same was submitted to the PSC. However, the PSC did not feel satisfied with the certificate and in July, 1993 the appellant was informed that his application was rejected for non-production of a valid actual practice certificate as required by Rule 9 above-said.

3. On 19.7.1993, the appellant filed a civil writ petition before the High Court of J & K laying challenge to the communication of the PSC and the action of the PSC excluding the appellant from participating in the process of selection. On 21.7.1993, the High Court passed an interim order directing the PSC to permit the appellant to appear in the examination on the basis of certificate of practice filed by the appellant at his risk and responsibility. The result of the appellant was directed not to be declared except under the orders of the court. The appellant participated in the examination conducted by the PSC under the interim orders of the court. On 21.9.1994, on a prayer made by the appellant, the High Court passed yet another interim order in continuation of the earlier order dated 21.7.1993 directing the result of written examination taken by the appellant to be declared. On 28.9.1994, the result was declared. The appellant had qualified at the written examination entitling him for participation in the interview. The appellant apprehended that the PSC may deny the appellant an opportunity of participating in the interview and hence he once again knocked the doors of the High Court and the High Court made an interim direction, in continuance of the earlier ones, allowing him participation in the interview as also declaration of the result of selection. It was further directed that if the appellant s name found place in the select list of candidates and if he fell within the zone of consideration for appointment, the High Court should carry the recommendation of J & K PSC to its logical conclusion by issuing appropriate orders; the appellant if appointed as M