B.A. Khan, (C.J.) 1. This Appeal is directed against Writ Court judgment dated 8th October, 2001 disposing of a batch of writ petitions raising identical/different questions of fact and law, and finally directing the appellants to recast the criteria for selection to the post of a teacher. 2. We have examined the judgment in one allied writ petition, SWP No.913/01, titled Jyoti Rani versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and have set it aside vide our judgment dated 08-10-01 in LPA NO.488/2001 J&K SSRB Vs Jyoti Rani & Ors. This case too could have been disposed of following the aforesaid judgment, but for the insistence of learned counsel for the respondent that the writ court had not considered all the points which had been raised by the respondent in her writ petition and that the points so raised would require consideration by the Appellate Court. 3. We, accordingly, heard learned counsel for the parties on the issues raised in the writ petition and projected before us by Mrs. Suridner Kour, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Before considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reference to few facts giving rise to the filing of SWP No. 1316/01 by the respondent, becomes necessary. 5. Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board had issued an Advertisement Notice No.3 of 1996 dated 24th of December, 1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of teachers. The criteria which was adopted by the Board in this selection reads thus:-- a) 10+2 50 Points. b) Graduation 10 Additional Points for Ist Division. 08 Additional Points for 2nd  Division. 06 Additional Points for 3rd  Division. c) Post-graduation 10 Additional Points for Ist Division. 08 Additional Points for 2nd  Division. 06 Additional Points for 3rd  Division. d) B.Ed 05 Additional Points. e) M.Ed 05 Additional Points. f) Viva-voice 20 Points. Total 100 Points 6. One Balvinder Kour, an unsuccessful candidate in this selection, approached this court to question the criteria fixed by the Board for selecting teachers. 7. During the pendency of this litigation of Balvinder Kour, Services Selection Recruitment Board issued Advertisement Notice No.1/99 dated 9/03/99 inviting applications from permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State for the posts of teachers in various Districts of the State. Candidates desirous of consideration for appointment to these posts responded to the notice of the Board. 7. During the pendency of this litigation of Balvinder Kour, Services Selection Recruitment Board issued Advertisement Notice No.1/99 dated 9/03/99 inviting applications from permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State for the posts of teachers in various Districts of the State. Candidates desirous of consideration for appointment to these posts responded to the notice of the Board. Respondent, Rekha Sharma was one of such candidates who had applied for selection and appointment as teacher. 8. Balvinder Kours writ petition was concluded by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Balvinder Kour Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, 2000 KLJ 421. While dealing with the case, the Division Bench held as follows:-- "In view of the above, we are of the opinion that giving undue weightage to 10+2 qualification and giving lesser importance to the degrees in the discipline of education is no apt. 10+2 qualification had no rational with the object i.e. appointment as teacher. 10+2 qualification is basic for all further attainments in all walks of life. How does this qualification advance the cause of teaching and of those who are to be taught? When this qualification is not given any weightage for any other discipline then why gives it so much importance in the selection of teachers. In any case, 50 marks for 10 +2 qualification is definitely on the higher side. At 10+2 stage an individuals personality is yet to develop and as observed in Lila Dhars case (supra), `it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life. Deeper traits of leadership, tact, and forcefulness are yet to develop. Therefore, giving undue regard to 10 +2 qualification at the cost of later qualifications is not apt. In somewhat different context, reserving 75 marks under one head out of 275 marks was held to be bad in the case of Pariakaruppan V State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303 (supra). Again reserving 50 marks out of 150 under one head in the case of Nishi Maghu v State of J&K & Ors, AIR 1980 SC 1975, and 33 1/2 percent of total marks for interview in Ajay Hasias case (supra) did not find favour with the Supreme Court of India. As indicated above, this was in the context of reserving marks for viva-voice. As indicated above, this was in the context of reserving marks for viva-voice. Nevertheless, the though behind this view is that giving undue weightage to one criteria at the cost of other attract the vice of inequality. This has certainly not been avoided in this case. There is no rational, there is no nexus with the object to be achieved. The object is to appoint a teacher. A trained teacher having graduation and post graduation qualifications in the discipline of education would be best suited for the job. By the process adopted in the present case, a trained teacher is being almost ousted from consideration by giving insignificant weightage to his B.Ed and M.Ed qualifications. As indicated above, if in the discipline of medical, law, engineering, architecture etc. the basic qualification is the one which is possessed by a candidate in that very discipline, then there is no justification to not to adopt the same criteria when appointments are made in teaching faculty. The decisions of the Supreme Court noticed above to lays down the importance of trained teachers. The criteria adopted in the present case brings in arbitrariness. We are not quashing the appointments which have already been made, but we do feel that this criteria is required to be recast. Let steps be taken in this regard. The question arises as to what relief the appellant is entitled to. The appellant does possess degree in B.Ed and also a Masters Degree. In our view she has been put to a disadvantageous position by considering her claims on the basis of 10 + 2 qualification. She has not been properly judged. The training which she has got in the discipline of education has not been given significant importance. This is not in line with the recommendations made by the Kothari Commission. This is also not in line with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases noticed above." 9. As would be evident on a plain reading of the directions contained in this judgment, the Division Bench saved the selections made out, at the same time, directed the recasting of the criteria on finding that allocation of 50 marks for 10+2 qualification was on the higher side. As would be evident on a plain reading of the directions contained in this judgment, the Division Bench saved the selections made out, at the same time, directed the recasting of the criteria on finding that allocation of 50 marks for 10+2 qualification was on the higher side. However, while parting with the judgment, it observed, "the State is advised to recast the selection policy for appointment of teachers," the expression which is being pressed into service by the appellant in this appeal which aspect of the matter will be dealt with later. It again transpires that in compliance to this judgment the SSRB issued notification dated 2nd march, 2001 publicising the recast criteria as under: (A) Basic Qualification: 40 points (B) Graduation: 10 points (Ist Division 10 points) (2nd Division 06 points) (3rd Division 04 points) (C) Post Graduate: 10 points (Ist Division 10 points) (2nd Division 06 points) (3rd Division 04 points) (D) B.Ed. 10 points. (E) M.Ed. 10 points. (F) Viva-voce 20 points. This was followed by notification dated 4th April, 2001 issued by the Board laying down the criteria for short listing of candidates for the post of teacher in the districts in question. 10. The respondent who was a candidate for selection / appointment to the post of teacher pursuant to notification of 1999, felt aggrieved of this recast criteria prescribing short listing of candidates and challenged it on the ground that it was contrary to the spirit and intent of the Division Bench judgment dated 18th October, 1999 passed in Balwinder Kour v State of J&K & ors (supra). It was also attacked on the ground that it was not mentioned in the advertisement notice inviting applications for the post of teacher and was also said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was also pleaded in the petition that recruitment to the post should not have been done on the basis of viva voce test only and it was, accordingly, prayed that the Board notification prescribing the new criteria dated 2nd March, 2001 be quashed along with notification dated 4th April, 2001 and that appellants be directed to recast the criteria for selection to the post of teacher by giving more weightage to the higher qualifications of candidates, like B.Ed. and M.Ed. asking the appellants to conduct a written test for making the selections. 11. and M.Ed. asking the appellants to conduct a written test for making the selections. 11. This petition was contested by the appellants invoking rules 10 and 13 of the J&K Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules of 1992, authorising the Selection Board to hold such tests for examination as may be prescribed under the rules or which it may consider necessary in the absence of such rules and to adopt any criteria which it may deem fit for preliminary screening of candidates. It was also pointed out by the appellants that the procedure for short listing of candidates had already been tested and held valid by Supreme Court and High Courts, and that since the respondent had not challenged the validity of Rule 10 or Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules, he could not be allowed to question the criteria laid down by the Board for short listing screening and for calling all candidates for interview. 12. It appears that the Writ Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions by a common judgment dated 18th October, 2001, raising I different issues and claiming different reliefs, dealing neither with the issues raised in the writ petitions nor the reliefs sought therein. On the contrary, the Writ Court went on a roving survey of sorts and adverting to the requirements of the teaching profession and referring to a whole host of judgments of the Supreme Court and some High Courts formulated the following conclusions which require to be reproduced for proper appreciation of the nature of appeal before us. These read as under: 1. That the eligibility criteria which is fixed by the State in the matter of making selection is fixed in the exercise of a power which is both Executive and Legislative. This power vests only in the Executive wing and it cannot be exercised by any authority exercising delegated powers. 2. That the eligibility criteria has to exist on the date which is indicated in the advertisement or which is indicated in Rule which is framed in this regard.. 3. If there is an administrative order laying down a stipulation indicating that qualifications acquired on a latter date can be considered as was the case in Chotu Rams case 2000 (10) SCC 399 then that aspect of the matter can always be taken note of. 4. 3. If there is an administrative order laying down a stipulation indicating that qualifications acquired on a latter date can be considered as was the case in Chotu Rams case 2000 (10) SCC 399 then that aspect of the matter can always be taken note of. 4. That the appointments are to be made only with regard to the posts which have been advertised and regarding the anticipated vacancies. 5. That so far as the Recruitment Board is concerned, it can only exercise those powers which are specifically vested in it. In this case, only power with a view to fix short listing criteria has been conferred upon the Board under Rule 13 of the Rules. It cannot exercise any other power. Therefore the notification dated 2.3.2001 indicating the selection criteria is held to be beyond the power of the Recruitment Board. 6. That when a direction was given by this court in Balwinder Kours case 2000 KLJ 421 to re-fix the eligibility criteria, then that power was supposed to be exercised by the State Government because this is a matter which falls within the purview of laying down the service conditions and this power could be exercised only by the Executive Government in the exercise of legislative functions. 7. That the laying down of the qualifications would be done in such a manner that it does not lead to a situation in which a trained graduate in the discipline of education is left out from consideration and which enables a Graduate in a discipline other than Education getting into the teaching stream. 8. That the syllabus for B. Ed. is entirely different as compared with the course of study which is undergone by a 10+2 candidate, therefore, this aspect of the matter has to be taken note of. 9. That adopting of different criteria for different districts is hit by the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India, which view has been noticed in Hardesh Kumars case 2000 KLJ 263. Therefore, this classification is also held to be bad. 10. Notification dated 12.3.2001 on the plain reading would apply only to the petitioners and appellants, who got the relief in terms of judgment given in Balwinder Kours case 2000 KLJ 421. This notification does not make mention of the fact that this selection criteria has to apply to the selection in question. 11. 10. Notification dated 12.3.2001 on the plain reading would apply only to the petitioners and appellants, who got the relief in terms of judgment given in Balwinder Kours case 2000 KLJ 421. This notification does not make mention of the fact that this selection criteria has to apply to the selection in question. 11. That even the present criteria, whereby 40 points have been given to 10+2 tilts the balance in favour of 10+2. If what is taught to the B. Ed. and 10+2 candidates is taken note of, then this does require reconsideration. 12. That even in the short listing criteria, the entry at S. No.V and S. No.VI of notification dated 4.4.2001 cannot be reconciled. Having drawn these conclusions, the Writ Court finally directed the respondents to recast the criteria and accord consideration to the respondents and other writ-petitioners without upsetting or disturbing the selection made by the SSRB. 13. Coming to the appeal, all that has to be seen is whether the recast criteria published by the SSRB dated 2nd March, 2001 read with notification dated 4th April, 2001 was contrary to the letter and spirit of the Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Kour v State of J&K (supra) or was it vitiated as it was not published in the advertisement notice or was it in any manner violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. We have extensively quoted from the Division Bench Judgement in Balwinder Kours case only to show that the Court had only found that the higher weightage given to basic qualification of 10+2 as inapt and had only directed the recasting of this criteria and consideration of the respondent (writ petitioner) according to that recast criteria. We have carefully examined the Division Bench judgment but we have not been able to come across any breach or violation of this judgment in the newly prescribed criteria vide the two notifications dated 2nd March, 2001 and 4th April, 2001 nor is it the respondents case how and in what manner this criteria could be held to be in breach of any of the directions or observations made in the Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Kours case. It seems that this impression has been gathered from the impugned judgment that any higher qualification of B. Ed or M. Ed ought to be awarded a higher weightage than a comparatively lesser qualifications of 10+2 or graduation, which is not the ratio laid down in Balwinder Kours case any way. Therefore, we have no difficulty in holding that the newly laid down criteria is in compliance to the judgment in Balwinder Kours case and not against its letter and spirit. 15. The other contention that the recast criteria prescribed by the Board was vitiated for being not published in the advertisement notice also requires to be rejected. It needs to be clarified that it is not mandatory for any selection authority to prescribe a criteria in advance in advertisement notice inviting applications for selection / appointment to the post. Such criteria is necessitated by the demand of the circumstances and is normally applied where the advertisement notice attracts large number of candidates which makes it difficult to go through the selection process with that number of candidates and requires short listing. Therefore, it is not mandatory or necessary to publish any such criteria in the advertisement notification for information of the prospective candidates unless, of course, it is required under some rules or regulations. 16. We also find no merit in the contention that the recast criteria was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is so for the reason that no minimum basics or foundation has been laid to substantiate this plea which is raised in generalised terms and seems to have been made for the heck of it and in a routine manner. A criteria can be questioned for its irrationality or perversity or arbitrariness or for being incapable of being satisfied which would attract Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case none of such eventualities are set out by the respondent in the writ petition to suggest that the criteria could be questioned on any of these counts. 17. Ms. Surrinder Kour, counsel for the respondent made a last minute plea to suggest that the criteria was to be recast by the Government and not the SSRB as was mandated by the Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Kours case. 17. Ms. Surrinder Kour, counsel for the respondent made a last minute plea to suggest that the criteria was to be recast by the Government and not the SSRB as was mandated by the Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Kours case. She invited our attention to para 22 of the judgment which reads: "This can indeed be achieved if we have trained teachers. This is the object which is foremost. It is because of this the State is advised to recast its selection policy in the matter of appointing teachers." 18. A plain reading of this observation by the Court while parting with the judgment does not lead to any conclusion that it had directed the State to recast the criteria for short listing / screening or for calling candidates for interview. It needs to be borne in mind that there is clear cut distinction and vast difference between the eligibility prescribed for a post under the relevant recruitment rules and the criteria prescribed by the selection authority for short listing / screening / interview or even, for that matter, making the final selection of candidates. Unless rules provide, it is for the selection authority or the Board to fix the criteria of its own for all these purposes in a given situation and in accordance with the demands of the situation. In the present case there is no grey area because rules provide for meeting this situation. For example rule 10 of the relevant SRO 194 dated 18th August, 1992 provides: "The Board shall finalise the selection after holding such tests or examinations as may be prescribed under rules, or if there are no such rules, as the Board may consider necessary". 19. This leaves no doubt that the Board has to make selections after holding such test or examination as may be prescribed under rules, or as it may feel necessary in absence of such rules. In other words, if the rules do not prescribe any particular mode for holding test or examination or does not lay down the criteria, the Board becomes competent to do so in the circumstances. In other words, if the rules do not prescribe any particular mode for holding test or examination or does not lay down the criteria, the Board becomes competent to do so in the circumstances. Similarly para (ii) of Rule 13 lays down as under:, "Ordinarily, the Board shall restrict the number of applicants to be admitted to oral or written test to a maximum of five times the number of vacancies after doing the preliminary screening on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and such other criteria as the Board may deem fit. 20. A plain reading of this provision shows that the Board was competent to hold a preliminary screening either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or any such criteria which it may deem fit. Regard being had to the relevant rule position, the submission of respondents counsel that the recast criteria was to be laid down by the State Government only deserves outright rejection. It is a different matter, however, that a prescribed or a laid down criteria for short listing or for selection may be questioned as being irrational, perverse or contrary to any rules in force, which is not the case here. So much so that the respondent in the appeal has not chosen to question either rule 10 or 13 of the relevant rules to show that the recast criteria was in any way suffering from any infirmity whatsoever. Besides, it is no more res-integra that selection Board would be within its rights to resort to short listing / screening of candidates, prescribing a criteria in this regard or even for that matter for selection so long as it does not militate against any rules in force. This position has been repeatedly underscored and followed in several Supreme Court judgments. We may cite some of these, namely, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v Navnit Kumar Potdar AIR 1995 SC 77, wherein it was held as under: "... This position has been repeatedly underscored and followed in several Supreme Court judgments. We may cite some of these, namely, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v Navnit Kumar Potdar AIR 1995 SC 77, wherein it was held as under: "... As we have already pointed out that where the selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview, if the applications for such posts are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled upon, the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis." In Union of India v T. Sudararaman, AIR 1997 SC 2418, the Supreme Court again held as under: "...Note 21 of the advertisement expressly provides that if a large number of applications are received the Commission may short list candidates for interview on the basis of higher qualification although all applicants may possesses the requisite minimum qualification. In the case of M. P. Public Service Commission v Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 JT (SC) 392 : 1994 AIR SCW 4088, this Court has upheld short listing of candidates on some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the purpose of short listing, a longer period of experience than the minimum prescribed was used as a criterion by the Public Service Commission for calling candidates for interview. This was upheld by this Court. In the case of Govt. of A. P. v. P. Dalip Kumar (1993) 2 JT (SC) 138 : 1993 AIR SCW 848 also this Court said that it is always open to the recruiting agency to screen candidates due for consideration at the threshold of the process of selection by prescribing higher eligibility qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed down with the ultimate objective of promoting candidates with higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration. The procedure, therefore, adopted in the present case by the Commission was legitimate...". 21. All this leads us to only conclusion that the Writ Court had proceeded on clearly a wrong premise in allowing respondents writ petition and directing recasting of the criteria unsupported by any reason or rationale, whatsoever and without dealing with the issues raised in the bunch of writ petitions. The impugned judgment is, accordingly, set aside and this appeal is allowed.