Per S.K. Gupta, J. We have heard M/s Abhinav Sharma and Irfan Noor, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also Mr. B.S. Salathia, Sr. AAG, Mr. Vinod Bakshi, Dy. AG, Mr. J.S. Kotwal, Senior learned counsel, on Caveat and Mr. Rajinder Singh Jamwal, learned counsel for their respective respondents, in extenso, in both the appeals. We have also perused the record meticulously. Both these Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the same judgment and order dated 22-9-2004 passed by learned Single Judge in batch of Writ Petitions, bearing SWP No. 1436/2000, entitled S. Gurmeet Singh and Anr. V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and others; SWP No. 1502/2000 entitled Rajesh Kumar and Anr. V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.; SWP No. 1674/2000 entitled Romesh Kumar Samotra and Ors. V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.; SWP No. 1080/2000 entitled Sanjay Sahni V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. and SWP No. 966/200, are being disposed of by this common judgment. By means of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge held that writ petitions, so far as they challenge the selection/appointments of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal, are allowed and selection/appointments of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal are quashed, being against the Statutory Rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection/appointments of the appellants along with others to the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Technical) made by the Transport Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir Government, vide his order No. 122/Estt. Of 2000 dated 1-8-2000, came to be challenged in batch of writ petitions. Three posts of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Technical), two for Kashmir Division and one for Jammu Division, were advertised by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Board") vide Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997 dated 29-4-1997, under open category. It was during the currency of the selection process, Under Secretary, Government Transport Department, addressed a communication to the Board and referred two more posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Technical), one for RBA category and the other for Scheduled Caste category, for selection to the Board. The Board was further requested to make selection for five candidates instead of three already referred to the Board. The Board was further requested to make selection for five candidates instead of three already referred to the Board. When lot many applications were received in response to Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997, the Board short-listed candidates vide Notice dated 15-6-1998 published in the newspaper. The candidates, who fell in the short-listing criteria fixed by the Board, were called for interview. Selection of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal, appellants, was also under challenge. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, necessary facts giving rise to this LPA, shorn of details, may be noticed. Appellant, Pawan Kumar Sharma, had applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) for Jammu, whereas appellant, Tariq Ahmed Mughal, applied for Srinagar, in open category, in response to Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997 dated 29-4-1997. Since the appellants did not fall within the short-listing criteria, they were not called for interview. It was under the interim order dated 30-06-1998 passed by the Writ Court in OWP No. 519/1998, the appellant, Pawan Kumar Sharma, came to be interviewed. In fact, the marks obtained by Pawan Kumar Sharma were less than the marks obtained by the last candidate, who was called and appeared in the interview for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) meant for Jammu Division. The names of two candidates, viz., Pawan Kumar Sharma for Jammu Division and Tariq Ahmed Mughal for Kashmir Division, were recommended by the Board merely on the ground that they possessed the driving licence for heavy motor vehicles. The record of all the candidates, who had applied under the Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997 dated 29-4-1997 and secured more marks in Diploma than Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal, was summoned from the Department in order to ascertain the truth in the stand taken by the Board, but no record was produced. The only inference deducible conclusively was that Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal were not the alone candidates, possessing such licence. Learned Single Judge further held that selection/appointments of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal against the posts, meant for Scheduled Caste and RBA categories, were unsustainable in law. In regard to two posts meant for reserved categories, no Advertisement Notice was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates belonging to the RBA and Scheduled Caste categories. Learned Single Judge further held that selection/appointments of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal against the posts, meant for Scheduled Caste and RBA categories, were unsustainable in law. In regard to two posts meant for reserved categories, no Advertisement Notice was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates belonging to the RBA and Scheduled Caste categories. For requirement to public employment, it is pre-requisite condition that the applications to be invited from all eligible candidates. The mode of advertising all vacancies is the most effective mode to get the best talent from open market after inviting applications. Adverting to the case in hand, the original Advertisement was for three posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Technical) in Open Category. Two posts were, subsequently, referred, one for RBA category and the other for Scheduled Caste category. No notification was issued inviting applications from all eligible candidates in the aforesaid categories. It is further borne out that a formal requisition of three posts only was received by the Board, regarding which the Advertisement Notice was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates. However, subsequently, during the course of selection process, it was Transport Commissioner, who vide communication dated 31-7-1998 informed the availability of additional posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Technical), purportedly referred to the Board. Selection/appointments of the appellants against the additional posts, referred subsequently, in which no advertisement was made, are clearly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, the learned Single Judge has given the details of the sequence of events how the appellant, Pawan Kumar Sharma, one after the other filed writ petitions and was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical). The procedure to be adopted for selection by the Board is provided under J&K Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 dated 18-8-1992. Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules envisages the procedure to be followed for selection by the Board. On reference of vacancies, the Board, as per the Rule, shall advertise the posts with its copies to be communicated to the respective Employment Exchange, Government Gazette, so as to give wide publicity. Two additional posts referred by the Transport Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir Government, under Scheduled Caste and RBA categories, against which Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal came to be selected and appointed, were never advertised by the Board. Two additional posts referred by the Transport Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir Government, under Scheduled Caste and RBA categories, against which Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal came to be selected and appointed, were never advertised by the Board. The vacancies on being referred to the Board, it was incumbent upon the Board to issue Advertisement Notice in respect of those two vacancies, so as to enable the candidates to apply in the said two reserved categories for the completion of the process of selection. Even the selection/appointments of appellants, Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal, being in violation of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Reservation Rules"), notified vide SRO-126 of 1994, are not sustainable in law and probity. It is provided under Rule 10 of the Reservation Rules that available vacancies shall be referred for the direct recruitment in each service, class, category and grade in favour of permanent residents of the State, as per percentage shown against each. Further, Rule 13 of the Reservation Rules provides the vacancies to be carried forward, if sufficient number of candidates are not available from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes during a recruitment process, the posts shall remain vacant and will be carried forward to the next recruitment process. Further, Clause (v) of Rule 13 of the Reservation Rules provides that even in the public interest, if reserved vacancies cannot be allowed to remain unfilled, the Department concerned shall make a proposal for de-reservation of vacancies giving full justification therefor. The Administrative Department concerned shall place the proposal for de-reservation in the General Administration Department for taking final decision. After having not been found from the record of the Transport Department that ever any proposal was sent to the General Administration Department for de-reservation of the two vacancies meant for reserved categories, in such event, the question of General Administration Department taking a decision with regard to de-reservation of two posts with full justification does not arise. In terms of Rule 13 of the Reservation Rules, the available vacancies, in case suitable candidates are not available, were required to be carried forward. In terms of Rule 13 of the Reservation Rules, the available vacancies, in case suitable candidates are not available, were required to be carried forward. The learned Single Judge has further made a reference in the judgment with regard to the Note dated 25-04-2000 of the Secretary of the Board, which shows that selection of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal against the posts meant for Scheduled Caste and RBA categories was objected to. Relevant extracts taken from such Note read as under: "4. The committee without taking the cognizance of the qualification prescribed for the post and also the fact that posts were not notified, these two posts have been included in the selection. Since the posts were referred at later stage and not notified it will not be legally prudent and correct to make the selection of additional prospective vacancies. The two posts are required to be formally notified and applications invited on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the department." "6. In view of the above, the selection is to be restricted to only three candidates, (i.e. two from Kashmir and One from Jammu Division) who are high up in merit. As such the following candidates amongst the list of selected candidates submitted by the selection committee qualify for the selection. I. Jammu Division. 1. Swarn Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, R/o New Plot Jammu Tawi. OC II Srinagar Division 1. Abdul Majid Bhat s/o Khazir Mohd R/o Chrusoo, Tral, Pulwama. 2. Peerzada Shabir Ahmed s/o Peerzada Ghulam Ahmed r/o Qazigund. OC" The learned Single Judge also held that by mere asking by the Transport Department to send the list of suitable candidates from open category to the Board, as candidates belonging to the reserved categories are not available, would not fulfil the requirement of Clause (v) of Rule 13 of the Reservation Rules, and, thus, is contrary to the Statutory Provisions. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the view that selection/appointments of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Tariq Ahmed Mughal are clearly against the Rules and Statutory Provisions, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned and lucid judgment prepared by the learned Single Judge, in these Letters Patent Appeals. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned and lucid judgment prepared by the learned Single Judge, in these Letters Patent Appeals. For what has been stated and discussed above, in our opinion, there is no merit in these LPAs and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with connected CMPs, and Caveat(s) discharged. Interim direction issued by this Court vide order dated 30-09-2004 shall stand vacated in resultant thereof.