Per : Doabia, J. Forty-three beneficiaries of Govt Order No.441-FST of 2000 dated 23-10-2000, who came to be appointed as Asstt. Directors in the Forest Protection Force on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the rules of Forest Protection force are enforced whichever is earlier, have preferred these appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Their appointments came to be quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Not only the appointees but the State has also preferred appeals. As issue involved in all these appeals is common. Therefore, it is proposed to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The case of the respondents/writ petitioners was that a brochure was issued by the J&K Forest Department. There was a proposal to constitute a Forest Protection Force. As per the respondents/ writ-petitioners they were waiting for further advertisement which would have enabled the eligible persons to take part in the process of selection for joining the Forest Protection Force. Petitioners however, submitted that instead of considering the claims of eligible persons State of Jammu and Kashmir issued Govt Order No.441-FST of 2000 dated 23-10-2000. After giving some background the operative part of the order was to the effect that 43 persons have been appointed as Asstt Directors in the Forest Protection Force in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the Rules of Forest Protection Force are enforced, whichever is earlier. The earlier Govt order bearing No.74-F issued on 24-4-2000 stood relaxed. This order dated 24-04-2000 was placed on the record of the petition as Annexure-D. This Govt order was challenged Inter-alia on the ground that these appointments were made without issuing any public notice. As to by what process the appointing authority was able to receive 58 applications was called in question. It was further stated that the applications were obtained by pick and choose method without making any public advertisement and providing opportunity to the eligible candidates who applied for the post. It was urged that not only the appointments were made without issuing any public advertisement, the respondent-State also did not take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta v State of J&K & Ors., AIR 2000 SC. It was urged that not only the appointments were made without issuing any public advertisement, the respondent-State also did not take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta v State of J&K & Ors., AIR 2000 SC. It was urged that even though there are no statutory rules in existence for governing the constitution of service, the fact remains that so far as Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution are concerned they are required to be followed notwithstanding the fact that there do or do not exist service rules. It was urged that earlier Govt had taken a decision to ban further recruitments and notwithstanding this ban the State of Jammu & Kashmir directed to make these appointments. It was also urged that so far as J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956 are concerned the appointments can be made for a period of 89 days and that too when there is a case of grave emergency. A person who is also appointed under Rule 14 of the Rules gets no right to continue with the post. In a nut-shell, the challenge to the appointments was made inter-alia on the grounds : (i) no public notice was issued; (ii) the rule on which the reliance was being placed, did not enable the State to make appointments beyond a specified period. 3. The stand taken by the State be noticed. In the objections which were ordered to be treated as counter, it was stated that the State of J&K has the power to make adhoc appointments and that these appointments do not confer any preferential right on the person so appointed. It was also stated that a notice was published in a highly circulated newspaper dated 30-6-1997, where-under all those candidates who had appeared in their B.Sc Forestry Course and who had under-gone Forester Training Course for two years were called upon to register their names in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests. It was in response to this notice, the candidates had submitted their applications. It was in response to this notice, the candidates had submitted their applications. It is stated that as some writ-petitions were pending in this Court, and that in writ petition No. 379/97 this court had directed the Public Service Commission that the result be not declared and no-doubt that interim direction stood vacated, but considering the urgency of the matter 58 applications which were received in pursuance to the advertisement, referred to above, the screening committee was constituted and it was in these circumstances 43 candidates came to be appointed. It is submitted that the proposal was submitted to the Cabinet and it was the State Cabinet, which gave its seal of approval to these appointments. With a view to support the urgency, it is submitted that the need to make the appointments was felt so that the illicit felling of green trees is curbed. It is also stated that the recruitment rules of Forest Protection Force are at final stage and that the adhoc appointments have been made in accordance with law and that the adhoc appointments would give no extra benefit of appointment letters having been issued in their favour. Thus, the stand of the petitioners that the appointments have not been made after issuing a public notice and the claims of all eligible persons have not been considered was sought to be met in the manner indicated above. This stand of the State, as noticed by the learned Single Judge be also taken note of. It was duly noticed, the decision of the Cabinet taken on 30-6-2000 whereby approval for the appointment of 58 candidates on adhoc basis in supersession of Govt Order No. 74-F dated 24-4-2000 was taken note of. It was the plea of the State that such appointments were necessitated to protect the forests of the State was also noticed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge noticed the view point and summarised the same by observing. "Thus according to official respondents faced with insurmountable problems, under compelling circumstances and larger interest of protecting the forest and environment that appointments have been made. These confer no right on the appointees". 5. Private respondents, who figured as appellants in these appeals stated that they were all eligible as per the norms laid down by the State Government. They had submitted their applications in terms of the notice published in two newspapers. These confer no right on the appointees". 5. Private respondents, who figured as appellants in these appeals stated that they were all eligible as per the norms laid down by the State Government. They had submitted their applications in terms of the notice published in two newspapers. According to them their appointments were made perfectly in accordance with law. Learned Single Judge called for the record. 6. Learned Single Judge sent for the records also. This aspect of the matter is noticed in the judgment. It was observed -- (i) that after the creation of posts of Assistant Directors in the Forest Protection Force, some exercise was done by the respondents to amend the rules; (ii) issue was referred to Public Service Commission; (iii) that the rules could not be amended because of the fact that some writ petitions were pending. One of such writ petition was stated to be SWP 379/97; (iv) two notices were issued in the newspapers. This was to the effect that all those candidates who had completed their B.Sc Forestry course and those who had undergone two years Rangers Training Course should register their names in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu and Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir. It was further mentioned in the notice that B.Sc Forestry candidates who have already been engaged as Range Officer Grade-I on adhoc basis during the year 1995 need not to register their names. 7. For what purpose this registration was to be made has not been indicated. (v) So far power of the State Govt under Rule 14 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 is concerned, there is hardly any doubt; (vi) that existence of public interest is sine-qua-non in the exercise of power and temporary appointments if at all can be made for a period of three months and in any case these are not to go beyond 9 months; 8. All these aspects were noticed and what was observed by the learned Single Judge is re-produced below : "What appears from the perusal of the official files is that the matter got bogged down in exchange of communications little realising the seriousness of the matter, and the purpose of creation of those posts and initiating timely and prompt steps for manning those became secondary and got into oblivion. Purpose of creation of posts was to achieve the object of checking the denudation of forest wealth as well as protection of environment. Thereafter everything went haywire because of non-finalisation of the rules during the period of more than four years from 1996". 9. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no case was made out, for continuing the appointments of the private respondents. It was accordingly observed that the appointments cannot be sustained when examined in the light of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It was concluded that under Rule 14, appointments can be made only for a period of three months and in any case these are not to exceed beyond nine months. Appointments being contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules and also in contravention of the spirit of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution were struck down. As indicated above the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is subject matter of challenge in these appeals. 10. Learned Single Judge while quashing the appointments also made an observation that as and when rules are framed, respondent-State would make some provision for promotion of in-service candidates. The appellants in the grounds of appeal have given certain facts and figures in chronological order. 27-4-1970 is the date when the J&K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules 1970 were enforced vide SRO No.359. 23-2-1984 is the date when these Rules were amended vide SRO No. 65. Yet another date which is given is 30-4-1992. It is on this date further amendment was made vide SRO No.106. 30% posts were said to be filled by direct recruitment from the candidates having passed Rangers Qualified Examination 50% of the posts were to be filled by promotion from Range Officer Grade-II, who have 5 years service in that category or 20 years service in non-gazetted cadre and 20% by promotion from Government sponsored Foresters having done Rangers Training Course from a recognized Forest Rangers College. On 5-1-1994 the qualification for direct recruitment was laid down. This was B.Sc Forestry. On 22-8-1994 the J&K Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to competitive examination for the post of Range Officer Grade-I. It is submitted that in all 49 eligible candidates submitted their applications. On 5-1-1994 the qualification for direct recruitment was laid down. This was B.Sc Forestry. On 22-8-1994 the J&K Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to competitive examination for the post of Range Officer Grade-I. It is submitted that in all 49 eligible candidates submitted their applications. Mention is made of the fact that on 6-10-1995 the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter to the State indicating that 203 posts of Range Officers Grade-I had been created in the permanent cadre. On 23-6-1995 appellants No. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14 and 18 in LPA(SW) No.21/2001 submitted their applications for appointment to the post of Range Officer Grade-1. Four months later i.e, on 6-10-1995 the State requested the Public Service Commission to furnish the list of eligible candidates for the post of Range Officer Grade-I and this list was furnished. Names of 49 candidates were indicated. These 49 candidates came to be appointed on adhoc basis as Range Officers Grade-I. It is stated that Public Service Commission again invited applications for the post of Range Officers Grade-I on 11-1-1996. Reference is being made to SWP No. 109/96, SWP No.406/96 and also 0LPA No.91/96. It is further stated that on 30-7-1997 Government issued a notification asking all candidates who possess Forest Qualification, whether B.Sc or DDR to register themselves to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu and Srinagar. Reference is also being made to certain other litigation. As to how this litigation is relevant and facts and figures beginning from 24-7-1997 till the issuance of Govt order dated 23-10-2000 have no bearing on this litigation has not been explained. The issues which were considered and adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court were -- (i) that no public notice was given; (ii) that adhoc appointments in terms of Rule 14 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 could not be beyond three months initially and total period could not be more than nine months. 11. It is this reasoning which is supposed to be met, if the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is to be successfully assailed. 12. We are of the opinion that the appellants i.e. the private respondents and also the State has failed in this regard. The legal position is clear. 11. It is this reasoning which is supposed to be met, if the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is to be successfully assailed. 12. We are of the opinion that the appellants i.e. the private respondents and also the State has failed in this regard. The legal position is clear. The appointments made in breach of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. without public notice cannot be sustained. Notice on which much reliance has been placed by the private respondents and by the State is noticed by the learned Single Judge. Rules in question on which reliance is being placed has also been noticed. With a view to appreciate the impact of the Notice and the Rules, it would be apt to re-notice them :- "Office of the Additional Secretary to Government, Forest Department : @CNBLD = NOTICE It is notified for information of all those candidates who have completed their B.Sc Forestry Course and those who have undergone Rangers Training Course of two years duration to register their names in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu and Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir within 15 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the press. The B.Sc Forestry candidates who have already been engaged as Range Officer Grade-I on adhoc basis during the year 1995 need not to register their names in these offices. While registering names with concerned Chief Conservator of Forests, the candidates must disclose the following which should be supported by the documentary evidence : 1. Name of the candidate with parentage and place of residence; 2. Academic qualification (with documentary evidence); 3. Certificate of having passed B.Sc Forestry or Rangers training course indicating year of passing the said examination; 4. Marks sheet of the examination passed; 5. Certificate in support of date of Birth; 6. Permanent resident certificate. Name of the candidate with parentage and place of residence; 2. Academic qualification (with documentary evidence); 3. Certificate of having passed B.Sc Forestry or Rangers training course indicating year of passing the said examination; 4. Marks sheet of the examination passed; 5. Certificate in support of date of Birth; 6. Permanent resident certificate. Sd/- DIPK 3347-48/97 Addl Secretary to Govt Dt 30-7-97: Forest Department Rule14: J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 : Rule l4: Temporary appointments (1) where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of services, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily with the prior approval of the Chief Minister in coordination until a person is appointed in accordance with these rules but such temporary appointments shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion and not more than nine months in all. (2) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or a candidate qualified and considered fit to hold the post under these rules. (3) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service class or category, or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category." 13. We are of the opinion that the notice in question did not indicate that those who submit their bio-data in terms of this notice dated 30-7-97, would ultimately be considered for appointment to the posts of Assistant Directors in Forest Protection Force. This notice would be of no assistance and therefore, the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the appointments were made in derrogation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution is a view to which no exception can be taken. Again Rule 14 of the Rules is clear and categoric that the appointments cannot be made for more than nine months in all. Therefore, this rule would also not come to the rescue of the appellants. 14. Again Rule 14 of the Rules is clear and categoric that the appointments cannot be made for more than nine months in all. Therefore, this rule would also not come to the rescue of the appellants. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals. These are dismissed. State is left free to persue the matter and make appointments in accordance with law. It is stated that the process stands initiated. It is hoped that this process is brought to an orderly end, otherwise there is no merit in these appeals and these are dismissed.