1. Appointment of respondents 5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition who now figure as appellants in this Appeal was found to be not in accordance with the law as they had not submitted the certificates indicating that they are residents of Actual Line of Control. What is said by the learned Single Judge in this regard is being reproduced below:- "Since the respondents 5 to 7 were not possessed of the requisite certificates, therefore, they were not entitled to seek selection against the posts reserved to be filled up by the candidates possessed of Actual Line of Act Control certificate. Thus this stipulation is uncalled for and unsustainable. The selection of respondents 5 to 7 against the posts reserved for IAC category, cannot be maintained as the respondents 5 to 7 were not eligible to seek selection against the said category for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore. the selection of said respondents deserves to be quashed, Consequent thereto appointments made pursuant to the selection also deserves to be quashed.� 2. The above respondents, who as indicated above, now figure as appellants have preferred this Appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent 3. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification on the cut off date as indicated in the advertisement notice inviting applications. However, a distinction has to be drawn between the qualifications which are required to be possessed by an applicant by effort and other qualifications which are inherited by a person or which become available to a person on account of his being a resident of a particular area. When a qualification is acquired by effort such as educational qualification, then the same would be deemed to be possessed on the Date it is acquired. The other qualifications such as member of being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category or resident of a backward area is something which is already possessed but is required to be demonstrated by producing the relevant documents. The fact that there is some distinction between the acquired qualifications and qualifications which are inherited is apparent from a Full Bench decision of this Court in LPA 29/1979 titled Stale of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Dr. Susheela Sawhney and other connected matters decided on 7th Oct. 2002. V.K. Jhanji. The fact that there is some distinction between the acquired qualifications and qualifications which are inherited is apparent from a Full Bench decision of this Court in LPA 29/1979 titled Stale of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Dr. Susheela Sawhney and other connected matters decided on 7th Oct. 2002. V.K. Jhanji. J. while dealing with the meaning of word "acquire� has made following meaningful observations:- "The word ˜acquire™ used in Note-III is very significant. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Seventh Edition the word ˜acquire™ means, ˜gain by and for oneself. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, ˜acquire™ means ˜come to possess™, and in Reader™s Digest Universal Dictionary, the word "acquire" means- (i) to gain possession of; (ii) to get, especially by one™s own efforts or qualities. Use of the word ˜acquire™ in Note-Hi necessarily means a change of relationship vis-a-vis Status of permanent resident of the State, which is said to be acquired for the first time and which was not existing before." 4. I also had an occasion to deal with this aspect of the matter and as to what would be meant by the term ˜acquire™ was commented upon. What was said in this regard is also being reproduced below:- "The word "acquire™ signifies the obtaining of something as a result of positive act done by the acquirer and would obviously not apply to a case where on account of death, the right devolves on the heirs of The deceased. This word would mean to gain, obtain or get as one™s own by one™s own exertions; gained in contra-distinction to innate or inherit it. This meaning was given to the word ˜acquire™ by a Division Bench of Travacore High Court, Cochin in AIR 1953 Tra-Co. 397. The argument that word ˜acquired™ signifies the obtaining of title as a result of a positive act done by the acquirer, commended to their Lordships of the Division Bench, Murray™s (A New-English Dictionary) was referred to, What is said is being quoted:- .. 397. The argument that word ˜acquired™ signifies the obtaining of title as a result of a positive act done by the acquirer, commended to their Lordships of the Division Bench, Murray™s (A New-English Dictionary) was referred to, What is said is being quoted:- .. The meaning given in Murray™s "A New English Dictionary" for the word "acquired" is, to gain, obtain or get as one™s own, to gain the ownership of (by one™s own exertion; or qualities) and for the word "acquired", is gained or obtained by one™s own exertion; gained in contradistinction to ˜innate" or inherited....," The Dictionary meaning suggest that the term "to acquire™ would mean to gain or to get as one™s own (by one™s own exertions or qualities). "Reader™s Digest Universal Dictionary 1988 Ed Page 24 gives the meaning of the term as "To get, especially by one™s own effort. Reference be made to a decision reported as Starey Vs. Graham (1899) 1 QB 406. The relevant observation is quoted below:- "The answer to that seem to me to be that "right acquired" means some specific right which in one way or another has been acquired by an individual and which some persons have got and others have not got....." Thus, whenever a right is acquired, it postulates existence of "a pre-existing right" and the change as a result of acquisition means getting a right for the first time. This meaning was given by the Bombay High Court to the word ˜acquire™ in the case reported as AIR 1968 Bombay 308,. Udhav Shankar Gangawane and others Vs. Tarabai. It was observed that the word "acquire" would mean ˜acquisition for the first time". Where a person has already, by reason of law, or otherwise, possessed of a right, then the-question of acquiring it would not arise." 5. If the above meaning of the word ˜acquire" is taken note of, then a person who already possesses some qualifications cannot be deprived of the benefit. He has merely to demonstrate this. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Ms. Rimpi Ohri, 2002 Kashmir Law Journal 290, has also considered the above aspect of the matter. He has merely to demonstrate this. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Ms. Rimpi Ohri, 2002 Kashmir Law Journal 290, has also considered the above aspect of the matter. The Division Bench was of the view that even if there-is failure on the part of a person concerned to place on record a certificate which could not be validated on account of some ambiguity, then that cannot be made a ground to reject the candidature of that person. 7. Again, this Court in the case reported as Assad Ullah Khan Vs. State of J&K, (2001) 1 J&K Law Reporter 137 has considered the above aspect of the matter. What was said in this regard is being reproduced below:- "...There are some qualifications which are acquired by effort; there are other qualifications which are conferred upon a person on account of the situation in which he is placed. A person who claims to be member of Scheduled Caste category is a Scheduled Caste by birth and not on account of certificate having been issued in his favour. There is a distinction between a qualification which is acquired on a later stage and the qualification which comes to vest on a person by operation of law. The certificate is issued only in proof of having been a member of a particular category. Similar is the position vis-a-vis a member who belongs to a backward area. In the case of education qualification, the position would be however, different. The educational qualifications are to be acquired by effort and the Date such eligibility is relevant. A distinction has to be made qua a qualification which is acquired i.e. by a positive effort and a qualification which stands vested by operation of law or by circumstances beyond the human effort such as birth in a family or at a particular place..." 8. The situation in the present case is similar. There was failure to produce the requisite certificate regarding place of residence. This aspect of the matter could have been examined. By way of illustration, if a candidate seeks benefit of appointment as a handicapped, then the fact that he was so handicapped can be seen even at the time of interview. The certificate in this regard may not be essential. This aspect of the matter could have been examined. By way of illustration, if a candidate seeks benefit of appointment as a handicapped, then the fact that he was so handicapped can be seen even at the time of interview. The certificate in this regard may not be essential. Therefore, to say that the appellants lacked the qualification regarding possession of the requisite certificate of being the residents of Actual Line of Control on the date when they were supposed to possess, is an argument which cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, the certificates were produced and are placed at page No. 14, 15 and 16 of the paper book. Therefore, to say that the appellants did not possess the certificates, is an argument, which as indicated above, cannot be accepted. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The appointment of appellants shall remain intact. However, if the respondent-writ petitioners are otherwise eligible, then their claims be considered and efforts be made to adjust them against available vacancies within a period of three months from the Date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the respondent-State. Appeal disposed of in the manner indicated above.