Claiming to be a resident of the back-ward area of Kulgam Tehsil, petitioner pleads that he was working as Senior Manager in the J&K Industries Ltd. and after promotion to the post of Dy. General Manager/Secretary in 1997, retired as such on 31st May 2000. In 1995 while he was working as senior Manager the process of inducting members of Autonomous Bodies/Government owned Public Sector undertakings into KAS was initiated by Government by providing technical quota for members of these undertakings. The concerned authorities were asked to forward lists of employees working in the scale of 3000-4500 on the relevant date, pursuant whereto the JK Industries where petitioner was employed furnished a list including petitioner also. After receipt of list the General Administration Department asked all undertakings to short list the names submitted by them deleting all such employees therefrom against whom departmental enquires or cases in Vigilance Organization were pending and restrict the recommended list to those only having excellent performance, whereupon JK Industries short listed its recommended candidates to six only, with petitioner one among them. Subsequently, he received a letter no. GAD (SER)/KAS/30/93-II dated 3.7.1999 from General Administration Department asking him to appear before the concerned selection committee for interview on 10th July 1999 along with his bio-data etc. In response he submitted his bio-data ahead of the date of interview as desired vide no. Adm/PF-07/515 dated 08.07.1999, and later appeared at the interview, whereafter the Committee formulated a selection list of officers eligible for induction into KAS in its meeting on 05.10.99, and forwarded the same to Government. The list comprised of 102 candidates including petitioner. Government however sat over the matter for as long as 11 months and only thereafter appointed 50 candidates out of the aforesaid list to KAS vide order no. 1014-GAD of 2000 dated 31.08.2000 by which time the petitioner had already retired from service and could no more claim the benefit of his having been recommended for induction into KAS by the concerned Committee as aforesaid. 2. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a representation before concerned authorities that even while figuring at serial no. 29 of the list of recommendees, he did not get any benefit though the recommendation was made on 5th Oct. 1999 while petitioner was in service, because government considered the list only after lapse of around one year by which time the petitioner had retired. 29 of the list of recommendees, he did not get any benefit though the recommendation was made on 5th Oct. 1999 while petitioner was in service, because government considered the list only after lapse of around one year by which time the petitioner had retired. The delay in issuing the orders pursuant to the recommendation had only been caused due to disputed eligibility of three candidates namely Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh, Dr. Abdul Rashid and Jahangir Mir so proprietary would demand that orders regarding candidates with disputed eligibility only should have been deferred and those clearly eligible including the petitioner inducted immediately after recommendation was made; but strangely the concerned authorities deferred action regarding eligibles apparently with a view to benefit some of their favourites, thereby causing irreparable loss to petitioner and others like him which smacked of malafides on part of respondents due to which petitioner was deprived of the chance of induction into KAS even though he had rendered unblemished service in JK Industries and had opted for induction into KAS despite the possibility of suffering reduction in his grade i.e, 10000-25500. The representation was endorsed to General Administration Department (GAD) who informed petitioner vide letter no. GAD (Ser) KAS-30/93 dated 29.09.2000, that the same had been examined and found merit-less. 3. Failure of respondents thus to induct petitioner into KAS as aforesaid, the petitioner seeks issuance of mandamus upon them to induct him into KAS w.e.f 05.10.99 with consequential benefits etc, on the grounds that in terms of the Rules of 1979 which were in tact at the relevant time selection of candidates from technical quota for induction into KAS was made by selection committee and government had no role to play except issuance of consequential administrative orders under said rules, with due dispatch. The delay caused by government in issuing orders was against the spirit of rules, particularly while it resulted in unjustifiable loss to petitioner, and induction of certain candidates declared ineligible by selection committee in view whereof he was entitled to induction into KAS even after his retirement with retrospective effect on the analogy of certain officers of Co-operative, Taxation, Accounts, Social Welfare, Private Secretaries, and Administrative Officers of Gazetted Services etc who were so inducted under government orders no.1632-GAD of 1997 dated 23-9-1997 and 1995-GAD of 1997 dated 23.12.1997, into KAS. 4. 4. In their reply, respondents 1 and 2 have among other things pleaded that petitioner having retired at the time of induction of officers from "technical quota" into KAS he could not be considered as there was no provision for retrospective induction of retired officers. While admitting all factual pleas raised by petitioner in his writ petition, the respondents have however, attempted to explain induction of retired officers in 1997, on the ground that in circumstances attending the matter at that time they could not be excluded from the selection list but were later deleted under respective government orders passed in that behalf. The case set up by respondents in their counter affidavit has however been contested by petitioner in his rejoinder by stating that respondents omission to order his induction into KAS in accordance with the select list has deprived him of pensionery benefits that he would get after induction into KAS cadre and as such he has suffered both in substance and status due to respondents inaction and as such they cannot claim that petitioner has no right to maintain the writ petition. Regarding deletion of retired officials/officers who were inducted into KAS in 1997 as aforesaid the petitioner has maintained that it was only after admission of this writ petition, that respondents passed some deletion orders but the benefits given to concerned officers have not been withdrawn at all. During course of their submissions learned counsel have reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. That petitioner was nominated by his parent organization under technical quota prescribed by rules, sought by government for induction into KAS pursuant to which he appeared at the interview before the duly constituted selection committee and was selected and recommended for induction into KAS figuring at serial no.29 of selection list is not denied by respondents. That he retired in May 2000 while orders of induction into KAS from amongst selection list were yet to be issued which were as matter of fact issued in August 2000 only, while petitioner was already out of service, too is admitted by all sides. That he retired in May 2000 while orders of induction into KAS from amongst selection list were yet to be issued which were as matter of fact issued in August 2000 only, while petitioner was already out of service, too is admitted by all sides. That the final appointments pursuant to selections were made 11 months after selection list was forwarded by appointed committee and in addition to certain candidates who were down below the petitioner in order of merit it also contained names some of those whose eligibility was in dispute, is a matter of record. That previously some retired officers were inducted into KAS is also admitted by respondents, albeit with an explanation that they were later deleted, without their benefits having been withdrawn as maintained by petitioner. Filing of representation by petitioner before competent authority and its dismissal is born-out by the records. In all these admitted facts and circumstances attending the matter, the question that emerges is to what relief the petitioner is precisely entitled to. 6. Before coming to that however, it would be profitable to quote from "the memorandum submitted to cabinet on induction into KAS against technical quota", photo-copy whereof has been furnished by petitioner along with his rejoinder, according to which under rule 53; and 51C of the KAS rules 15% of the posts available in time scale of KAS were reserved as technical quota, to be filled up from amongst persons of outstanding ability and merit carrying a higher pay scale than time scale of KAS, serving in autonomous bodies and government undertakings, on recommendation of the concerned department/autonomous body/ public sector undertakings, for filling which, the rules did not prescribe any specific procedure, and accordingly an adhoc procedure was adopted whereunder GAD requested all autonomous bodies and public sector undertakings etc., to recommend suitable officers for consideration of induction into KAS whereupon 440 officers were recommended which include some officers fairly on higher positions higher than KAS, for their induction which prompted the Selection Committee to obtain their option and ask them to indicate their willingness to accept the grade and seniority admissible as per rules after their induction and appointment into KAS, in response whereto 213 options were received out of which 119 were considered as having been given positively. The officers found eligible for interview in accordance with criterion adopted by committee, were called for the interview out of whom only 108 actually appeared before the Selection Committee, but five among them namely "Dr. M.A. Malik, Sh. M.D. Knar, Sh. Jahangier Mir, Sh. G.I. Qibilatain and Mtr. Mutahara Abida Deva", were found in-eligible by the Committee for different reasons. Sh. Jahangier Mir who later figured in the induction list was found to be in-eligible for holding the scale of 3000-4500 on ex-cadre basis only with an explanation that Housing Department had released grade in his favour recently with retrospective effect which was under examination and required his reconsideration at some later stage. At the same time the Committee also recommended deferment of consideration in respect of one Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh pending settlement of the question whether "JAKFD" to which he belonged could be regarded as an Autonomous Body within the meaning of relevant rule but one post was however, kept vacant till final decision in the matter was arrived at. Besides that there was some difference of opinion in respect of one Dr. Ab. Rashid also. It would however be appropriate to mention that both these persons figure in the final induction list. However after full deliberations the committee recommended 102 candidates for induction into KAS with petitioner figuring at serial 29 having 87 points to his credit with the candidate at serial no. 1 having 97 and the last one, who too figures in the final selection list, 52 points only. Out of 56 posts available 49 were declared to be filled up, leaving others vacant for petitioners in various writ petitions and the aforementioned Jahangier Mir and Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh. However the memo was submitted to Cabinet with certain notes including the one that petitioner along with another candidate figuring at serial no.44 had retired and was as such not eligible for appointment to KAS. Thereafter the orders of induction into KAS were issued and the petitioner dropped therefrom. 7. From all that has transpired above, together with the admitted facts and circumstances of the case the only conclusion that can legitimately be drawn is that the petitioner herein has missed the opportunity of induction into KAS only due to the unjustified delay caused by concerned authorities in passing consequential orders after due selection of candidates. 7. From all that has transpired above, together with the admitted facts and circumstances of the case the only conclusion that can legitimately be drawn is that the petitioner herein has missed the opportunity of induction into KAS only due to the unjustified delay caused by concerned authorities in passing consequential orders after due selection of candidates. Though one cant perhaps positively hold that the delay of eleven months involved in issuing appointment orders was malafide or consciously designed to defeat the rights of certain deserving candidates including petitioner, yet sight cant be lost of the fact, that at least two candidates whos eligibility was positively disputed found their way into the final induction which perhaps could not have been possible had the petitioner- and may be some others like him, been given his due at the right point of time. In the backdrop of that aspect if petitioner suspects intentional foul play through some sort of a dubious display of unwanted lethargy by concerned authorities, his suspicion cant perhaps be said to be wholly misplaced. The fact of the matter is- and the least- that petitioner is the victim of a gross omission of concerned authorities to discharge their administrative obligations with dispatch, if not a willful commission to slaughter him for transfusing life into somebodys else dead case. However, since he is already retired the due benefit of his duly acquired eligibility into KAS would not be wholly available to him- and that is the worst part of this case, which only adds agony to his injury; but he certainly appears to be entitled to positive consideration for some sort of a solatious rectification of the undue injuries undeservingly suffered by him. 8. In totality of circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents for consideration of petitioners case for deeming him to have been inducted into KAS only for the purpose of retiral benefits, if such benefits are not available to him in lieu of having retired on the post he held in his parent organization. Benefit of analogy with those officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after their retirement and later, as per respondents deleted, but continuing with benefits thereof as per petitioner shall be available to him, even if- and purely in the interests of justice it means a one time departure from the norm. Benefit of analogy with those officers who were admittedly inducted into KAS after their retirement and later, as per respondents deleted, but continuing with benefits thereof as per petitioner shall be available to him, even if- and purely in the interests of justice it means a one time departure from the norm. Consideration as such be accorded within a period of four months from now, whereafter the petitioner shall be at liberty to re-agitate the matter, if cause survives or accrues. The petition stands accordingly disposed of alongwith all connected CMPs.