JAMMU: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Adv Abhinav Sharma, stayed the selection process of House Surgeons in Dental College Jammu. Justice DS Thakur observed that Adv Abhinav Sharma appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner had secured 79.4 marks in the discipline of Oral Medicine and Radiology but a candidate namely Shalija Malhotra with 78.4 marks has been selected and the merit of the petitioner has been ignored. It is stated that Oral Medicine and Radiology was her second preference. In regard to the discipline of Pedodontics, which was her third preference, she had secured 79.3 marks, whereas selected candidates, namely, Komal Sharma and Rehana Tabassum had secured 77.5 and 75.5 marks respectively.
State Counsel, on the other hand, relied upon notification dated 18.05.2016, which is an advertisement notice inviting applications from permanent residents of J&K who have done BDS from recognized dental institutions for appointment as full time House Surgeons. The said notification reflects that the allotment of the department would be decided by the Committee on the basis of overall merit/rank/preference of the candidates indicated in the application form as per Government Order No. 706-HME of 2007 dated 11.01.2007. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that respondent No. 22, namely, Shalija Malhotra was selected over the petitioner even when the said respondent had secured less merit than the petitioner on the ground that she had reflected her first preference as Oral Medicine and Radiology as against the petitioner who had reflected the same as her second preference. Similarly, respondents No. 19 and 20 were selected over the petitioner in the discipline of Pedodontics which was their first preference and the petitioner’s third.
Justice DS Thakur after hearing Adv Abhinav Sharma appearing for the petitioner whereas Deputy AG PS Chandel appearing for the Health Dept observed that on the face of it, it appears that official respondents have misunderstood and misapplied advertisement notification dated 20.05.2016, whereunder the selection has to be made on the basis of merit/rank/preference. Official respondents appear to have given more weightage to the preference than the merit while making the selection in which the petitioner was even more meritorious than the selected candidates in the aforementioned two disciplines.