1. The two petitioners have challenged the selection of teachers for District Budgam (Annexure-K) based on advertisement notices dated 24-12-1996 and 09-09-1997. Petitioner™s case is that despite being meritorious with higher qualification, both of them though applied for the posts and appeared in the interview, were not selected/appointed for no reason. Petitioner No. 2 had earlier filed a writ petition and questioned selection of candidates for District Budgam based on advertisement notice issued in the year 1995. Pursuant to non-implementation of some of the orders in the earlier petition (SWP No. 4186-97/96), the contempt petition was also filed against the respondents. The respondents/competent authority irked by this action of petitioner No. 2, dropped her maliciously without duly assessing her merit/qualification for purpose of selection as teacher to the available posts. Respondent No. 2 is M.A. in Islamic Studies. She has got 2nd division in B.A. as well as in M.A. Similarly petitioner No. 1 who is a graduate and first divisiner in Secondary School, Higher Secondary School and B.A. Examination, was also left out. There was no written test. The interview conducted of the two applicants was a farce and just a mere formality to be gone through rather than an exercise to assess merit/qualification/ability/aptitude etc. of petitioners for selection to the post of teachers. Various malpractice in the selection are committed. Candidates with brilliant academic career have been left out, whereas, candidates with lesser qualification and merit have been taken. Extraneous consideration have gone into the selection process. Petitioners possess higher merit and qualification than many of the selected/appointed candidates including respondents 5 to 48. 2. The norm/criteria for selection/appointment of teachers in this case laid down by the Subordinate Service Selection Board is as under:- 10+2 = 50 points Graduation = 10 points for 1st Div. = 8 points for IInd Div. = 5 points for IIIrd Div. Post Graduation = -do- B.Ed. = 5 points M.Ed. = 5 points Viva Voce = 20 points This norm/criteria laid for selection/appointment against the post of teachers to assess and evaluate the candidates for selection/appointment to the post of teachers, is assailed on the ground that the candidates with inferior merit and lesser qualification are awarded more points than the candidates with higher qualification and merit. This device is devised with a view to favour some of the candidates at the cost of merit and qualification. This device is devised with a view to favour some of the candidates at the cost of merit and qualification. The selection list is prayed to be quashed with direction to respondents to undertake fresh process of selection to fill up the advertised post of teachers. 3. Respondents have been given ample opportunity. Neither the Service Selection Board nor respondents of Education Department nor the State Govt. has filed reply. The writ petition came to be admitted on 18.10.99. Private respondents who were set exparte, have choosen not to contest the case. Even official respondents have not come forth to contest the case. Infact, Mr. Qadri for respondents 1 to 3, and Mr. A.M. Shah for respondent No. 4 have tendered statement (s) that as there is no feed back to them, they are not in position to file counter/ reply. Petitioner™s counsel presented judgment date 18.10.99 in LPA (SW) 364/99 and the parties conceded that this case is squarely covered by the above judgment. It was in this background that the parties were heard. 4. The writ averments are not at all contravened by the respondents. The allegations against Subordinate Service Selection Board as also the other respondents of Education Department are imcontroverted. They are and shall have to be legally deemed very much in place to hold the field. 5. From record it emerges that admittedly petitioner No. 1 is a graduate with first Division in B.A as also in Secondary School and Higher Secondary School Examination whereas, petitioner No.2 is M.A with second division in B.A and M.A Respondent™s/Service Selection Board™s unfavourable placement and hardened attitude in the matter of their selection as pleaded and stated above, is not without basis. There are circumstances available on record to buttress her grievance as projected in the petition. Otherwise how could it be that when no written test is held and appearing candidates are to be assessed on interview only, that candidates with higher qualification and higher merit should have been ignored and candidates with lesser merit and qualification should have been taken. The above quoted norms and criteria laid down by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for selection/appointment of teachers to 284 advertised posts based on advertisement notice 3/96 dated 24-12-1996 and 8/97 dated 09-09-1997, challenged in this petition, came under judicial scrutiny in LPA (SW) 364/ 99 titled Balwinder Kour Vs. State of J&K and others. The above quoted norms and criteria laid down by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for selection/appointment of teachers to 284 advertised posts based on advertisement notice 3/96 dated 24-12-1996 and 8/97 dated 09-09-1997, challenged in this petition, came under judicial scrutiny in LPA (SW) 364/ 99 titled Balwinder Kour Vs. State of J&K and others. Before the D.B. the criteria as laid down incase of selection of teachers under challenge in this writ petition, was also under challenge in the matter of selection to the posts in Jammu Division. After examining the law and the objective, criterion for assessing qualification, merit, suitability, aptitude etc. of the candidates for the posts of teachers in an interview where no examination is held, the Court observed: ..... In view of the above, we are of the opinion that giving undue weightage to 10+2 qualification and giving lesser importance to the degree in the discipline of Education is not apt. 10+2 qualification has no rational with the object i.e. appointment as teacher. 10+2 qualification is basic for all further attainments in all walks of life. How does this qualification advances the cause of teaching and of those who are to be taught, when this qualification is not given any weightage for any other discipline then why given it so much importance in the selection of teachers. In any case, 50 marks for 10+2 qualification is definitely on the higher side. At 10+2 stage, an individual™s personality is yet to develop and as observed in Lila Dhar™s case (supra) it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life.� Deeper traits of leadership, tact, forcefulness are yet to develop. Therefore, giving undue regard to 10+2 qualification at the cost of later qualification is not apt.......� 6. The Division Bench has taken pains in the context of requirement of appropriate norms and suitable criteria in the matter of selection of teachers giving importance to the training and qualification and merit in the field of education, to hold that candidates with training and higher qualification and merit in comparison to candidates assessed at 10+2 qualification are disadvantaged in the matter of weightage given on above criteria. Consequently on this criteria those candidates cannot be said to be properly assessed in respect of their merit and qualification. Consequently on this criteria those candidates cannot be said to be properly assessed in respect of their merit and qualification. Thus due weightage in the matter of selection and appointment against the posts of teachers is not given and in misplaced and faulty assessment/evaluation, candidates get selected. The Division Bench has even observed that such criteria is not in line with� recommendations of Kothari commission on requirements, policy and selection methods against the posts of teachers. After all the quality of education in large measure determines the advancement, prosperity and welfare and well being of the people. 7. Following the judgment of the D.B. obviously 50 marks for 10+2 qualification is much on higher side and operates to the detriment of those who are graduate and above with higher merit and that too in absence of any written test. The above judgment has even emphasised the requirements of evolving a proper criteria. Having thus come to the above conclusion, the question is whether selection/appointment made to hundred of teaching posts in this case are apt to be quashed. Taking stock of over all facts and circumstances of this case, selection/appointments stand already made, the selection/appointments are left undisturbed and not advisable to be quashed. But all the same the appellants are entitled and have to be selected/appointed against available vacancies, though appointment can be denied only on the petitioners not fulfilling the requirements as to age and permanent residentship of the State. The direction to select/appoint is all the more apt. keeping in view the para 9 (I) of the writ petition, where details have been given of three candidates not having joined their selected/appointed posts. The petitioners shall be considered/selected/appointed against these dropout and other available posts. Contextually notice is also taken of judgment of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Rout and Ors Vs. State of Bihar (1989) 9 SCC 71 and Kashav Narayan Gupta and Ors Vs. Jila Parishad Shivpur (MP) and another (1989) 9 SCC 78, which have been also noticed by the Division Bench on the question of appointments in the facts and circumstances, as given above. Disposed of accordingly.