R.C. Gandhi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging legality and correctness of the judgement dated 12.6.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP Nos. 311/2002 and 1047/2001, whereby he has allowed the writ petitions holding the writ petitioners, Respondent No. 1 herein, eligible and possessing the experience of two years to seek consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers in the Health and Medical Education Department. 2. The appellant, Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as the Commission�) issued Notification No. 30-PSC of 2001 dated 12.10.2001 inviting applications from the candidates, residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, desirous to seek selection and appointment for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Paediatrics in the Medical Education Department, The eligibility qualification prescribed in the Notification was that the candidates must possess M.D. (Paediatrics), specially Board of Paediatrics (USA), and the experience as Registrar/Tutor Demonstrator/Tutor or Senior Resident for a period of two years in the concerned discipline in a recognised teaching Institution, recognised by the Medical Council of India or University of Jammu/Kashmir. The respondent No. 1 having worked as Registrar in Govt. Medical College in the discipline of Paediatrics w.e.f. 22.02.1992 to 17.9.1993 and w.e.f. 1.1.1995 to 1.7.1995 for a period of more than two years, applied to the post by submitting an application form to the Commission. His application was rejected by the Commission vide its communication dated 1.2.2002 and conveyed to respondent No. 1. Under such circumstances respondent No. 1 approached the court by means of SWP No. 311 of 2002 for quashing communication dated 1.2.2002 issued by the appellant and to direct the commission to interview him as being duly qualified for the post of Lecturer. He further sought to quash SRO No. 9 of 2002 dated 15.2.2000 whereby the respondent-State has amended Schedule-II of the J&K Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1975 and added the following proviso as a condition of eligibility for the post: Provided that the teaching experience if any gained before or during the post-graduation studentship shall not be considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer.� 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge without quashing SRO 9 of 2000 has held respondent No. 1 eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge without quashing SRO 9 of 2000 has held respondent No. 1 eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer. 4. Aggrieved of this the appellant has filed the LPA on the ground that the judgement under appeal is not sustainable as the learned Single Judge has not taken notice of SRO 9 of 2000 which explicitly provided that the teaching experience, if any gained before or during the post-graduation studentship, shall not be considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer. The legality of the judgement under appeal is also questioned on the ground that by virtue of the impugned judgement two sets of essential and eligibility qualification, for the post of Lecturer has been prescribed to be followed by the Commission, i.e,. one by virtue of the judgement and another by statutory rules, which itself is discriminatory. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The admitted case of respondent No. 1 is that he has not acquired any experience as provided under SRO 9 of 2000 after passing his post-graduation. To be eligible to seek selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer, the desirous candidate must possess the statutory eligibility qualification as noticed above. The learned Single Judge without returning any finding on the validity of the SRO has held respondent No. 1 eligible to seek consideration which could not have been unless SRO is quashed as prayed for by respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. R.K. Gupta has urged that respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be ineligible as he has acquired the qualification and the experience of Registrarship before passing of M.D. under rules before coming into operation SRO 9 of 2000. His specific submissions is that respondent No. 1 forms itself a Class of those persons who have acquired the experience before the issuance of SRO 9 of 2000, therefore, the operation of the SRO has to be prospective and will not render respondent No. 1 ineligible. Respondent No. 1, therefore, according to him is eligible as he has undergone Registrarship course acquiring such qualification in terms of Rules prevalent at that time. The plea of Mr. Gupta though attractive cannot be entertained and accepted. Law has to be applied uniformly to all the candidates. Respondent No. 1, therefore, according to him is eligible as he has undergone Registrarship course acquiring such qualification in terms of Rules prevalent at that time. The plea of Mr. Gupta though attractive cannot be entertained and accepted. Law has to be applied uniformly to all the candidates. Such concept of classification shall not only be contrary to the concept of law but also equality before law. SRO 9 of 2000 has been issued by the State Employer looking to the need of the employment and also to make the post functional according to the requirement of the employer. Any candidate who has passed the Registrarship before post-graduation is still at liberty to do Registrarship in the discipline in which he has passed the post-graduation which is evident from the Advertisement Notice dated 1.11.2001 issued by the Government Medical College inviting applications for appointment to the tenure post of Registrar for a period of two years. If the plea of Mr. Gupta is accepted it will certainly create two sets of eligibility qualifications for the post of Lecturer and in that event not only the purpose of SRO 9 shall be defeated which is the requirement of the employer but is discriminatory also. It has not been shown as to how the SRO issued by respondent is mala fide, illegal or prejudicial to the rights of respondent No. 1 while the opportunity is available to do Registrarship after post-graduation. Respondent No. 1 is a post graduate and without doing. Registrarship after post-graduation cannot be held eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer. 7. Another plea of Mr. Gupta is that the effect of the SRO should be prospective and not retrospective. SRO was issued on 15.2.2000 and the posts were advertised on 12.10.2001. It is uniformly made applicable to all the Asstt. Surgeons who are possessed of the eligibility qualification, therefore, the SRO is operating prospectively in its letter and spirit. 8. It is also submitted by Mr. Gupta that the writ petition be sent back to the file of the learned Single Judge as there are no finding on the question of legality or validity of the SRO. Mr. Gupta could not convince us that the SRO suffers from any vires, malafide or in any way prejudicial to the rights of the Respondent No. 1. Gupta that the writ petition be sent back to the file of the learned Single Judge as there are no finding on the question of legality or validity of the SRO. Mr. Gupta could not convince us that the SRO suffers from any vires, malafide or in any way prejudicial to the rights of the Respondent No. 1. There is no use to send the writ petition to the file to the learned Single Judge unless there are convincing reasons therefor. There is thus no force in this plea. 9. Respondent No. 1 admittedly is not having the eligibility qualification as prescribed under SRO 9 of 2000. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, therefore, are contrary to the provisions of SRO and the rules, which cannot be maintained. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed.