1. Director General of Police, JandK State respondent herein, on 9th March 2007, issued Advertisement Notice, inviting applications from eligible candidates for available vacancies of Constables (Operator) in JandK Police Telecommunication. The advertised posts were to carry pay scale of 2750-4400. The Advertisement Notice laid down eligibility and selection criteria to be followed while making selection. The Notice attracted huge response. In all 2788 candidates applied for advertised posts. Petitioners and private respondents in writ petitions on hand were amongst the candidates who responded to the notice.
2. Selection process, as laid down in Advertisement Notice, comprised of measurement of physical standards, outdoor tests, written test, and viva-voce or personality assessment. On completion of selection process, select list was notified vide PHQ No.2844-2609 dated 1st August 2009. Respondents instead of making selection at State or Divisional level, made selection at district level and issued district-wise selection list. Petitioners did not find place in the Select List.
3. Petitioners, in writ petitions on hand, are non-selected candidates. They, in the first round of litigation, questioned Select List in five writ petitions, registered as SWP Nos.1177/2009, 1270/2009, 1478/2009, 1527/2009, and 1802/2009. Once Select List was acted upon and appointment orders issued in favour of selected candidates, petitioners filed fresh writ petition, being SWP No.1352/2010, now throwing challenge to appointment orders of selected candidates. As per the statement made by learned counsel, petitioners 8, 12,13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 33, 44, 51, 60, 70, 72, 73 and 75 in SWP No.1478/2009; petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 2, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in SWP No.1177/2009; petitioners 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in SWP No.1270/2009; petitioners 4, 5, 8, 9, 22, 25, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 in SWP No.1527/2009; petitioners 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 78, 79 in SWP No.1807/2009; and petitioners 5,6,7, 14, 22, 37, 43, 44, 47, 59, 144, 147, 162 in SWP no.1352/2010, have lost interest in prosecuting their respective writ petitions. Writ petitions, therefore, survive to the extent of only 167 petitioners, out of whom 148 have responded to advertisement notice under Open Merit Category and 19 under Reserved Categories.
4. Petitioners are aggrieved with their non-selection on the ground that respondents, having regard to contents of advertisement notice dated 9th March 2007, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates and selection process undertaken, were to make selection at State level. It is pleaded that respondents, by making selection at district level, have compromised merit and paved way for selection of less meritorious candidates at the cost of candidates having higher merit. It is stated that had respondents made selection at the State level, none of the aspirants for advertised posts would have been left with any grievance. Such a course, it is pleaded, would not have compromised merit.
5. Respondents are said to have arbitrarily allotted posts to Districts without sanction of the posts at district-level from competent authority and thereafter filled up the posts allocated on the basis of district-wise merit. Petitioners further plead that respondents neither mentioned number of posts to be filled up in advertisement notice nor District- wise breakup of the posts to be filled up. It is pleaded that had respondents given District-wise breakup in advertisement notice, a candidate would have been in a position to take an informed decision regarding District in which such candidate would apply and participate in selection process. The omission on part of respondents to invite applications and make selection at District level is said to have violated petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India, and prevented them from participating in selection process at the District of their choice. Petitioners, on the strength of grounds urged in writ petitions, seek quashment of Select List and appointments made thereafter and direction to respondents to fill up the posts of Constable (Operator) on the basis of single State level merit list and make appointments against advertised posts on the basis of such merit list.
6. Respondents oppose writ petitions on the ground that as post of Constable (Operator) is a District Cadre post and in terms of Rule 172, JandK Police Rules, 1960, Superintendent of Police of the District is appointing authority, selection and appointments made cannot be faulted on the ground that recruitment has been made at District level. It is pleaded that even if Advertisement Notice did not indicate that recruitment was to be made at District Level, such omission would not be fatal to selection and appointments made inasmuch as aspirants for advertised posts participated in physical measurement test and outdoor test at District Level and District Recruitment Boards were constituted to conduct such tests. Omission in Advertisement Notice to inform candidates that selection was to be made at district level, according to respondents, is condonable having regard to instructions given to candidates to deposit their application forms in the office of Superintendents of Police of respective Districts. Writ petitions are also resisted on the ground that petitioners having participated in selection process, cannot turn around and question methodology adopted by respondents to make selection or even selection criteria laid down in Advertisement Notice.
7. Petitioners, in their rejoinder, question veracity of averments made in opposition to writ petition. It is insisted that stand taken in counter affidavit is belied by record. It is pleaded that selection made at district level was made as it left room for favouritism, though in conflict with mandate of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India, and therefore, liable to be set-aside. Reliance placed by respondents on Rules 172 and 176, JandK Police Rules 1960, to justify District-wise selection, according to petitioners, is grossly misplaced as rules relied upon are not applicable to selection and appointments in question. Methodology adopted by respondents to make District-wise selection and appointments, it is pleaded, is only a tool to effectuate favouritism and leave scope for selection and appointment of candidates, who would not otherwise find place in Select List. Petitioners deny that after applications were received in response to Advertisement Notice, selection process was entrusted to District Recruitment Boards. Impugned selection is also said to violate mandate of JandK Reservation Act, 2004 and Rules made thereunder.
8. I have gone through pleadings as also record made available by learned counsel for respondents. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length.
9. Question raised in the bunch of petitions on hand is as to whether after applications are invited for advertised posts at State Level, it would be permissible to make selection on conclusion of selection process, at district level, on the basis of merit computed at district level. To settle controversy our attention must, in the first instance, go to Advertisement Notice. It reads as under:
œPolice Headquarters JandK Jammu?
Advertisement Notice
1. Application as per the prescribed pro-forma, are invited from the permanent residence of JandK State for the post of Constable Operator in the JandK Police Telecommunication Organization in the pay Scale of Rs. 2750-4400 plus usual allowances as admissible from time to time:
2. The Minimum Education Qualification, Age and Physical Standard for the Post are as under;
i. Education Qualification 10+2 (With Science)
ii. Age Candidates should not be more than 28 years and not less than 18 years of age on the Ist. Day of January 2007.
iii. Physical Standard For Male candidates
A. Height 5 - 6 (Minimum)
B. Chest 32 Un-expended (Minimum) 33 = Expended (Minimum)
For Female Candidates
A. Height- 5 -6
(However, candidate belonging to Leh and Kargil district and form Gorkha community (State Subject) the minimum height for male candidates shell be 5 -4 and for female candidates, the minimum height shall be 5 - 0)
3. The application from must be accompanied by the attest copies of the following certificates.
i. Matriculation Certificates/date of birth certificate.
ii. Higher academic certificate (if any)
iii. State subject certificate
iv. Marks sheet of 10+2 examination passes.
v. Certificate, if any relating NCC/Sports games and other extra curricular activities.
vi. Prescribed certificate belonging to the particular received category as per the provision of SRO 294 of 2005
vii. Three copies of passport size photograph of the applicant.
viii. Two self addressed envelops duly stamped.
4. The candidates should deposit the applications forms in the office of the superintendent of police of the home district of the candidate. Application forms, in complete in any manner, shall in no case be entertained.
5. The candidates will be subject to the following test.
i. Physical Measurement Test. Only those candidates who are found physically fit and possessing other prescribed standards shall be allowed to complete in out door test
ii. Out Door Test.
For Male candidates
100m race (time 13.5 seconds or less)
800m race (time 2.5 minutes or less)
High jump (1.20 Mtrs in three chances)
Long jump (3.60 Mtrs in three chances)
Push up-20
Short put 7.26 Kgs (6.00 Mtrs in three chances)
For Female candidates
100m race (time 16.5 seconds or less)
800 m race (time 3.6 seconds or less)
High jump (1.05 Mtrs in three chances)
Long jump (3.25 Mtrs in three chances)
Short put 4.00 Kgs (4.50 Mtrs in three chances)
iii. Written test (Marks -100)
iv. Viva- voce /Personality assessment test ( Marks -10)
The candidates who will be found fit in physical measurement/outdoor test and processing other prescribed standard will be called for written test. Candidates who quality in written test will be called for viva-voce/personality assessment test.
Candidates who may have contracted any loan/stipend under the self employment scheme or any other scheme will be allowed to join only case they obtain a certificate form the concerned department to the effect that they have refunded the loans/any other liability in full.
The candidates shall have to appear in the prescribed test at their own expenses on the dates and at venues to be communicated at appropriate time.
Due representation to the eligible candidates belonging to different received categories as per the provisions laid down in SRO 294 of 2005 will be given.
The last date for the receipt of applications in the office of respective district superintendents of police is 14-05-2007.
Gopal Sharma
Director General Police JandK,
Jammu
10. A bare look at Advertisement Notice would reveal that Advertisement Notice has been issued by Police Headquarters at Jammu under seal and signature of Director General of Police, JandK, Jammu. It does not indicate number of posts proposed to be filled up and breakup of posts for Open Merit Category and Reserved Categories. However, candidates applying under any of the Reserved Categories are required to append Reserve Category Certificate in terms of SRO 294 of 2005 with the application. This indicates that of the posts proposed to be filled up, 43% posts were to be filled up from amongst Reserved Category candidates. Advertisement Notice does not indicate that selection and appointments were to be made on the basis of district-wise merit worked out on conclusion of selection process. Advertisement notice, therefore, on the face of it suggests that advertised posts were to be filled up at State level on the basis of merit computed at such level. Petitioners case, therefore, finds support from contents of Advertisement Notice in question.
11. Respondents, as record would indicate, have conducted physical measurement test and outdoor test at district headquarters. However, written examination and viva-voce of the candidates, who satisfied measurement test and outdoor test was conducted at the State level under supervision of Inspector General of Police. The fact that measurement test and outdoor test conducted at district headquarters, would not justify selection and appointments on the basis of merit computed at district level. Respondents after written test and viva-voce was conducted, have divided the candidates into 22 groups, having regard to their place of birth or the district of response, computed merit at district level and made appointments against posts allotted to a district. Such a course was neither permissible under law nor available to respondents in terms of the Advertisement Notice.
12. Let us now see how selection methodology adopted by respondents, has operated harshly against petitioners and other meritorious candidates. From perusal of record, it transpires that cut off merit for inclusion in Select List varied from district to district. To illustrate, while cut off marks in Open Merit Category for District Anantnag is 78 points, in case of Bandipora it is 82 points. This indicates that meritorious candidate from Bandipora, having more than 78 points, say 81 points was not selected while a less meritorious candidate with same number of points i.e. 81 or even down below to 78 points, was selected in District Anantnag. The cut off marks in respect of other districts would show similar pattern. It would be advantageous to tabulate hereunder cut off marks/points for selection in different Districts:
| District | Cut of marks/points |
| Anantnag | 78 |
| Bandipora | 85 |
| Baramulla | 87 |
| Budgam | 86 |
| Ganderbal | 91 |
| Kupwara | 84 |
| Pulwama | 85 |
| Shopian | 62 |
| Srinagar | 79 |
| Doda | 80 |
| Jammu | 71 |
| Kishtwar | 81 |
| Kulgam | 75 |
| Kathua | 76 |
| Poonch | 72 |
| Rajouri | 83 |
| Ramban | 67 |
13. In terms of Rules in vogue, an eligible candidate is to be considered for an advertised post notwithstanding his place of birth or district, to which he belongs. Any discrimination on the basis of place of birth or district, to which a candidate belongs, infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16, Constitution of India. Had respondents in Advertisement Notice informed aspirants for advertised posts that selection was to be made district-wise and intimated number of posts earmarked for each district, each candidate would have taken an informed decision to apply in a particular district having regard to number of posts earmarked for such district and number of candidates, he expected, to respond to the notice and possible cut off merit expected to be fixed for selection in such district. To illustrate, a meritorious candidate from Baramulla who could not make it to select least even with 87 points, would have applied for the posts earmarked for district Shopian, where last selected candidate secured only 62 points. Respondents, therefore, have not provided level play field to candidates, who responded to advertisement notice, and qualified physical measurement test and outdoor test. The mode and manner of selection process, impugned in writ petitions on hand, therefore, is tainted with arbitrariness and is violative of mandate of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India.
14. The above discussion is made on an assumption that district-wise selection was permissible but Advertisement Notice was not tailored in accordance with rules inasmuch as it neither mentioned number of posts to be filled up with district-wise breakup, number of posts earmarked for each of the reserved categories nor did it not inform candidates that selection was to be made at district level.
15. We have made an effort to find out how omissions made by respondents have worked harshly against petitioners and converted merit into demerit. Let us now see whether district-wise selection was permissible under rules and respondents are competent to press into service Section 172 and 176, JandK Police Rules, 1960, to justify district- wise selection. Police Department comprises of different wings or branches, like executive police, armed police, prosecution wing, auxiliary police and police telecommunication. Rule 12, JandK Police Rules, 1960, provides for Police Wireless Grid under supervision and control of Superintendent of Police. The Grid has been reorganised as Telecommunication Wing headed by a Director in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, assisted by 04 Superintendents of Police, 15 Deputy Superintendents of Police, 66 Inspectors, 236 Sub Inspectors, 431 Assistant Sub Inspectors, 995 Head Constables, 999 Constables and 18 Followers. The Wing is kept under command and control of Inspector General of Police, Modernisation. The post of Senior Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, is redesignated and upgraded as Director, Telecommunication. The staff of Telecommunication Wing is different from Executive Police and Armed Police inasmuch as staff is not sanctioned at district level or Battalion level. Director, Telecommunication, after staff is recruited, allocates or distributes it amongst districts on need basis. The allocation of staff is not same as creation and sanctioning of staff at district level. The number of personnel allocated may vary as per need or having regard to important factors, like increase in crime rate, expansion or modernisation of telecommunication facilities.
16. In terms of Rule 172, Superintendent of Police has power to appoint a Constable in the executive police under his command and control. The expression œSuperintendent of Police? in the Rules has reference of Superintendent of Police of a district. The Superintendent of Police of a district is, therefore, given power and authority to make appointments against post of constable(s) available in the district under his control. Superintendent of Police of District does not have power to appoint Constable (Operator) born on Telecommunication Wing only because posts of Constable (Operator) are allocated before or after recruitment to a district. Reference in Rule 176 to œSuperintendent of District in which applicant resides? is to facilitate receipt of applications at district level in a hassle free manner and does not confer power on Superintendent of police of a district to make appointments against posts of Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors. Directorate of Police Telecommunication is set up at State level and staff is also to be recruited at State level, and after recruitment, allocated to districts on need basis.
17. Government orders, whereby posts have been created/ sanctioned at different levels in Police Department from time to time, also lend support to afore-stated conclusion. In Government Order No.213-Home of 1997 dated 23rd June 1997 and No.Home (P) of 1998 dated 18th May 1998, whereby 5000 and 3933 posts were created/sanctioned respectively at different levels, the posts, sanctioned for Telecommunication Wing, are separately identified. The law laid down in State versus Krishan Paul [2009 (3) JKJ (HC) 341] is, therefore, not applicable to the present case inasmuch as facts of the reported case are distinguishable from the fact of present case on the basis of district-wise merit. The fact that after selection process was completed, appointment orders of selected candidates based on district-wise merit were issued by Police Headquarter (PHQ) and not by Superintendents of Police of respective districts also leads to the conclusion that selection was made at State level and appointment orders passed at State level, though selection made on the basis of district-wise merit.
18. The above discussion apart, mode and method of selection and consequent appointments, are in gross violation of JandK Reservation Act, 2004 and JandK Reservation Rules, 2005. It has already been noticed that though total number of vacancies was not advertised nor was category-wise breakup given in advertisement notice, yet advertisement notice made it clear that mandate of Reservation Act and Reservation Rules was to be adhered to, as the reserved category candidates were asked to append requisite certificate in terms of SRO 294 of 2005 with their applications. Respondents admit that as many as 1126 Constable (Operator) vacancies were sought to be filled up through selection process initiated by advertisement notice in question. In terms of Rule 4, JandK Reservation Rules, 2005, 43% of available vacancies (1126 x 43%= 484 posts) with the following breakup were to be reserved for reserved category candidates:
(a) Scheduled Castes 8% 8/100 x 1126 = 90
(b) Scheduled Tribes 10% 10/100 x 1126 = 112
(c) Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:-
(i) Weak and under privileged Classes (social caste) 2% 2/100 x 1126 = 22
(ii) Residents of areas adjoining Line of Actual Control (ALC) 3% 3/100 x 1126 = 34
(iii) Residents of backward areas 20% 20/100 x 1126 = 225
In addition to above, 6% of vacancies were to be set apart for horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen and 3% to Physically Challenged Persons, subject to identification of services/posts in terms of Section 22, JandK Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998. In terms of Rule 5, JandK Reservation Rules, 2005, 100 point roster is to be maintained in prescribed form.
19. Respondents, by resorting to district-wise selection have violated mandate of Reservation Act, 2004 and Reservation Rules, 2005, inasmuch as lesser candidates, and in some cases more candidates, as against number of vacancies required to be set apart for reserved categories as shown in the above Table, have been selected and thereafter appointed. In some districts, like Kargil and Leh, all posts have gone to Scheduled Tribe (ST) category paving way for 100% reservation that too in case of only one category a course forbidden under law. In case of District Ramban as against 02 vacancies, having regard to posts meant for ST Category, have been filled up from Category while no other candidate except Reserved Backward Area (RBA) Category has got representation. Same is true about District Kishtwar, where as against 05 vacancies that would go to RBA Category candidates and 02 vacancies to ST Category candidates, only 03 and 01 vacancies have been filled up from ST Category and RBA Category whileas as against 02 vacancies Scheduled Caste Category 03 candidates from Category have been appointed. In case of District Reasi, none of vacancies has gone to RBA Category whereas having regard to posts allocated to district, 02 vacancies were to be earmarked for RBA Category. In District Srinagar out of 88 vacancies allotted to the District, only 02 posts have gone to RBA category whereas having regard to Reservation Rules, 2005, 17 posts should have been filled up from RBA Category candidates. Same pattern has been followed in other districts. As per record made available by respondents, out of 992 vacancies (as against 1126 available vacancies) filled up vide PHQ Order No.2168 of 2010 dated 26.06.2010 and 3475 of 2010, 824 of 2011 dated 10.03.2011, only 145 posts as against 199, have been filled up from RBA candidates. Scheduled Caste has got 30 slots as against 79, Scheduled Tribe 65 as against 99 slots and ALC 15 as against 30 posts due in terms of Reservation Rules 2005.
20. Furthermore, had recruitment been intended to be made district-wise, respondents would have maintained District-wise Roster in compliance of Rule 5, Reservation Rules, 2005. This has not been done, leading to conclusion that though selection and recruitment was to be made at State level yet after finalising selection process at State level, decision was taken at last moment to make District-wise selection.
21. Respondents admit that advertised posts were not sanctioned or created District-wise and distribution was made to give representation to every State Subject throughout State as according to respondents State level selection would not ensure representation to all districts and categories. It is stated that distribution/allocation was made having regard to population of a district. Perusal of record, however, would reveal that distribution/allocation of posts was made arbitrarily with least regard for population of a district. To illustrate, 36 posts have been allotted to District Doda with population of 4,09,576 and only 33 posts allotted to District Udhampur with population of 5,55,357. District Reasi with population of 3,14,714, has got 12 posts whereas District Shopian with population of 2,65,960, has got 20 posts. District Rajouri with population of 6,19,266, has been allotted 43 posts whereas District Kathua with population of 6,15,711 has got only 38 posts. The posts allotted and population of respective Districts may be tabulated for ready reference hereunder:
œTABLE?
Respondents stand that posts were allocated having regard to population of District, therefore, is belied by record. In the circumstances even if population is accepted as a justifiable and legally permissible criteria for allocation of posts, the record convincing established that the criteria was observed in breach. The record on other hand reveals that posts have been arbitrarily allocated presumably to satisfy the pulls and pressures and that too at the cost of meritorious candidates. To illustrate, a meritorious candidate from District Ganderbal did not find place in Select List only because posts allotted to his district were lesser than posts allotted to other district(s) with some of lesser population. The number of posts allotted, therefore, does not correspond to population of a district, as claimed by the respondents. The whole exercise including distribution of posts in the circumstances has been made in an arbitrary, whimsical and capricious manner. Meritorious candidates have been chased out of competition in an unfair and unjust manner. This aspect of the matter also leads us to conclusion that mode and manner of selection is in gross conflict with mandate of Article 14 and 16, Constitution and also belies respondents stand that methodology was adopted to give representation to every State Subject throughout State as also representation to all Districts/categories.
22. Respondents case that petitioners are stripped of any right to question Select List and appointments, made on the basis of Select List inasmuch as petitioners, after participating in selection process, cannot turn around and question it, is bereft of any substance. The ground is urged unmindful of the fact that respondents did not, through advertisement notice dated 9th March 2007 or even thereafter, inform petitioners and other aspirants for advertised posts, that selection was to be made at district level. Respondents, as a matter fact, changed selection criteria midstream and after selection process i.e. physical test, written test, interview/viva voce, was over, decided to make selection on the basis of district-wise merit. Petitioners, therefore, cannot be faulted for throwing challenge to Select List and appointments made on basis thereof, after participating in selection process. Petitioners, on other hand, are to be held to have right to throw challenge to Select List and appointments made on the ground that they were taken unawares and respondents adopted a criteria not contemplated under advertisement notice or rules to govern selection process.
23. I am conscious that selection has been made way back in the year 2009 and appointments made in 2010 on the basis of Select List after respondents vide order dated 30.04.2010 in CMP Nos. 2166/2009, 2569/2009, 2261/2009 and 2350/2009 in SWP No.1177/2009, were allowed to act on Select List subject to outcome of writ petitions on hand. It may be argued that it would be too harsh to set-aside Select List and appointments made on the basis thereof, after appointees have worked in respondent department for last three years. This argument, however, must not influence the Court to legitimise an unfair and arbitrary selection that smells of favouritism. Injustice is not to be condoned on the ground of delay in dispensation of justice, nor can it be perpetuated only because those who would not have right to enjoy public largesse were arbitrarily given access to benefit and have continued to enjoy such benefit for some time. Once the Court is satisfied that spirit and mandate of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India, have been violated and benefit conferred arbitrarily, it should not allow beneficiaries to enjoy usufruct of manipulations in the name of equity and fair play. There can be no equity in favour of one, who has been conferred benefit like employment under Government with least regard to rule of law. Tendency to condone injustice and overlook violation of rules and regulations makes those who flock to Courts to get their grievances redressed, loose faith in administration of justice system. Such recourse breeds bitterness and prompts people to resort to extra judicial tools and means other than available within four corners of law, to have their voices heard and complaints addressed. It is pertinent to point out that petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions on hand, have lost no time in throwing challenge to Select List. They came to Court even when Select List was yet to be acted upon by respondents and appointment orders were not issued. Right course for respondents, after petitioners called in question Select List as also mode and manner in which it was finalised, was to give a close look to reservations voiced and take steps to undo injustice. Respondents, however, remained adamant and went ahead to make appointments on basis of Select List, ignoring that it was under a cloud. Petitioners, therefore, cannot be held guilty of inordinate delay in questioning Select List and appointments made on the basis of Select List. It is to be concluded that no equity has flown in favour of private respondents, so as to persuade Court to maintain their selection.
24. For the reasons discussed, writ petitions are allowed and Select List notified vide PHQ No.2844 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009 (Annexure P-4 in SWP no.1352/2010) and appointments made vide PHQ No.2168 of 2010 dated 26.06.2010 vide Notification No.3475 of 2010 dated 23.10.2010 and 824/2011 dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P-4(a) in SWP No.1352/2010), on the basis of impugned Select List, quashed. Respondents are commanded to reframe Select List at State level on the basis of merit secured by candidates, who participated in selection process having due regard to JandK Reservation Act, 2004 and JandK Reservation Rules, 2005, and thereafter consider candidates for appointment in order of merit against 1126 posts, though not mentioned in advertisement notice, but admittedly proposed to be filled up on finalisation of selection process initiated vide advertisement notice 9th March 2007. However, selection and appointment of such of the private respondents, who find place in the reframed select list and having regard to their place in the merit list and the number of vacancies to be filled up, make grade for their appointment, shall remain intact and undisturbed. The exercise be completed as far as possible within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
25. Writ petitions to the extent of petitioners, who have lost interest in prosecuting writ petition as per statement of learned counsel for petitioners as mentioned in paragraph 02 herein above, are dismissed.