JUDGMENT : B.C. Patel; CJ.:- 1. The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Recruitment Board through its Administrative Officer, Mubarak Mandi, Jammu has preferred these appeals. These appeals are against the common judgment and order made by the Learned Single Judge in group of petitions, one being SWP No. 879/1998, decided on 1.6.1999. Appellant by Public Advertisement i.e. Notice No. 6 of 1997, dated 1.7.1997 (Annexure-A) to the writ petition, invited the applications from the permanent residents of the State only for the posts indicated in Annexure-A to the Notification. Annexure-A refers to different categories of posts. In the instant case, the respondents applied for the posts of Technicians Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. The applicants' qualification prescribed in the said Advertisement is Matric with ITI Diploma in Electric/Electronic or simple ITI. In the advertisement, there was a note having XVIII Clauses. Clause-XTV reads as under: "No application shall be entertained for District Cadre posts from the candidates belonging to other Districts or who possess an ambiguous permanent resident certificate." 2. Number of people applied for the post in question. The J & K Service Selection Recruitment Board considered the criteria that the applicant could have only applied for the post in question for the District to which he belongs. Thus, over and above the eligibility criteria indicated in Annexure to the notice, residence was also considered. The eligibility criteria to be precise and clear was that if a person who is permanent resident of the State and resides permanently in Jammu then he was not entitled to apply for the District other than Jammu. 3. The J & K Services Selection Recruitment Board on the basis of these criterias, selected the candidates. The candidates, who were not selected, on the basis of the criteria of residence, approached this court. 4. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the pleadings placed before the court and the decision of the Apex Court, arrived at conclusion that criteria of residence adopted is not in accordance with law and there cannot be zonal wise selection. 4. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the pleadings placed before the court and the decision of the Apex Court, arrived at conclusion that criteria of residence adopted is not in accordance with law and there cannot be zonal wise selection. However, the learned Single Judge instead of quashing and setting aside the entire selection process, further observed that the petitioners were within their right to contend that they may be appointed against the available vacancies and the petition was disposed of by giving direction to the State to appoint the petitioners against the available vacancies in different Districts without disturbing the selection already made. It is against this order, the present appeals are filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the J&K Services Selection Recruitment Board tried to submit that the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization of and Recruitment to Non-Gazetted Cadre) Rules, 1969 permit the selection of candidate of cadre wise posts from the District only and the persons residing in other Districts were not eligible to apply. It was submitted that there are State Cadre, Divisional Cadre and District Cadre. According to the learned counsel, for the State Cadre, persons residing in the State can apply. So far as Divisional Cadre is concerned, persons residing in the concerned Division can apply and so far as District Cadre is concerned persons residing in concerned District can apply for the post. Learned counsel on repeated requests, could not point out from the rules that a person residing in one District cannot apply for a District Cadre post in another District. Vide Notification dated 18.8.1992, SRO 194 was also issued wherein State Cadre is defined as under: "State Cadre: means the sanctioned strength of the non-Gazetted posts borne on the establishment of the headquartered offices of the departments having jurisdiction over the whole State but does not include the posts borne on the Divisional and District Cadres." 6. As per sub-clause (viii) of Clause III of SRO 194 of 1992, District Cadre means the cadre of department in a District comprising all the posts whether executive, ministerial, technical or manipulative maximum of the pay scale or the basic pay of which does not exceed Rs. 2040/- per month exclusive of all allowances and dearness pay. There is reference of constitution of Board for recruitment and Selection. 2040/- per month exclusive of all allowances and dearness pay. There is reference of constitution of Board for recruitment and Selection. Clause-XI refers to procedure for posts referred to erstwhile Board. It refers to that all applications invited and received, any select list finalised by the erstwhile Board or any recommendations made by any erstwhile Committee. Select list of the candidates finalised by erstwhile Board or any other Committee thereof to the appointing authority, will be transferred to the Secretary of the Board. The Board shall as soon as may recommend the selection of the candidates to the appointing authority in respect of vacancies which stand referred to the erstwhile Board without inviting fresh applications. 7. After going through the Clauses and Procedure for selection and Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee, when we put a question to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to point out from these rules that a person residing in one District cannot apply for the post in the District where he is not residing. In absence of any ban imposed, such criteria cannot be applied. In absence of criteria or restricting the applicants to apply, the question of further consideration does not arise. Even assuming that in public advertisement such mischief is played by restricting the person to apply for the District wherein he resides, the question is, can it be said that the same is permissible under law. 8. Division Bench of this Court in case Hardesh Kumar v. State of J & K reported in 2000 KLJ 263 : JKJ Soft JKJ/22322 had an occasion to consider similar situation. That Educational Zones were created. The Division Bench considered and followed the reported decisions of the Apex Court in case Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012 , Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of J & K and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1975 : 2010 (6) JKJ 261 [SC] and Radhey Shyam and Others v. Union of India and Others (1997) 1 SCC 60 and ultimately held that the creation of Educational Zones is a method which is wholly contrary to the scheme of the Constitution. The scheme must be based on equality clause. 9. The Division Bench of this court in LPA(SW)336/2001, decided on 19.8.2002 (one of us Mr. The scheme must be based on equality clause. 9. The Division Bench of this court in LPA(SW)336/2001, decided on 19.8.2002 (one of us Mr. Justice S.K. Gupta was party to this judgment) in similar situation held that "we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was well justified in directing the official respondents to prepare State-wise merit list. We, however, find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for some of the writ petitioners. That learned Single Judge while giving direction to the official respondents to re-draw State-wise merit list, should have set-aside the selection/appointment." 10. In our view, the court has no power to direct the State to make appointments more than the vacancies available for selection at the relevant point of time as it involves financial implications and so decision, if any, in this regard can be taken by the State Government. If the process of selection is not in accordance with law, same should be set aside with a direction to follow the procedure in accordance with law and to appoint the persons. The Division Bench by modifying the order made by the learned Single Judge further ordered to re-draw the merit list State-wise within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that on re-drawing of the merit list, if the candidates who have already been selected/appointed and came within the merit zone, they would not be disturbed. But their seniority would be determined in accordance with the merit list, which would be finally prepared. It was also directed that the State Government shall take an undertaking from the selected candidates that they would join at the places as per allocation made by the State on the basis of their merit position. The court also issued direction with regard to reservation in accordance with Roster provided under Rule 14 of the Reservation Rules. The appeal was disposed of with the aforesaid directions. It goes without saying that in these appeals, these directions shall also apply. 11. In view of what is said hereinaboves the order made by the learned Single Judge in so far as directing the State Government to make appointments is concerned, is required to be quashed and set-aside. The appeal was disposed of with the aforesaid directions. It goes without saying that in these appeals, these directions shall also apply. 11. In view of what is said hereinaboves the order made by the learned Single Judge in so far as directing the State Government to make appointments is concerned, is required to be quashed and set-aside. However, at the same time, a direction is required to be given to the State to re-draw merit list of the candidates according to their merit by preparing State-wise list and directing the candidates to join duty at particular place after taking undertaking from the candidates. Appeals shall stand disposed with the aforesaid modifications with no order as to costs. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two months time is insufficient and requested that three months time may be granted. We therefore, grant three months time but no further extension shall be granted.