Nargotra, J 1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment dt. 22nd of December, 2006, passed by the learned Writ Court in a bunch of petitions bearing SWP Nos. 2355/03, 136/04, 229/04, 360/04, 362/04, 371/04, 434/04, 480/04, 726/04 and 1285/04, whereby the said writ petitions, involving similar nature of controversy have been disposed of with the following directions:- "(i) The selection made by the Selection Committee/Board on the basis of tehsil-wise, after conducting the trade test, thereby dropping the petitioners, is quashed; (ii) Respondent are directed to re-determine the merit of the candidates district-wise; and they will not opt any of the candidates, who have applied for the posts of Constables, in trade test, and will not deduct four marks to be allotted to them in terms of Order No. 941 of 2003 dated 06.03.2003 issued by respondent No. 3. (iii) Selecting Authority can put only those candidates in trade test(s), who have applied for the posts of Followers. (iv) While determining the candidature of the SC/ST candidates, the relaxation of upper age shall be considered in terms of the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes in Services, issued by the General Department, Government of J&K and in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 (SRO 126 of 1994). (v) The official respondents are further directed to give a personal bearing to all those candidates, who are to be affected after re-determining the merit of the candidates district-wise. (iv) This exercise is to be completed within three months. Till this exercise is completed, the candidates already selected and appointed should not be disturbed" 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir-appellant No.3, vide an advertisement notice dated. 25th of Jan03, invited applications from the permanent residents of the State of J&K (male candidates only) for the post of Constables in IRP Battalions in the pay scale of Rs. 2750-4400/- with usual allowances. The educational qualification, age and physical standard prescribed for the said post were as follows: - Educational qualification Age as on January 1st, 2003 Physical Standard Matric and above from any recognized institute Not less than 18 years and above 28 years. (The candidates born before 01.01.1975 and after 31.12.1984 shall not be eligible) Height 56" Chest 32" unexpanded 33-1/2" Expanded. (The candidates born before 01.01.1975 and after 31.12.1984 shall not be eligible) Height 56" Chest 32" unexpanded 33-1/2" Expanded. However, for the candidates belonging to Leh, and Kargil Districts and Gurkha community (State Subjects), the minimum height shall be 54" 3. The advertisement notice further provided that the candidates will be subject to following tests: - i) Physical measurement test; ii) Outdoor tests: iii) Item Qualifying time/distance (a) 100 Mtrs Race 15 Seconds or less (a) 100 Mtrs Race 15 Seconds or less (b) 0500 06 Minutes or less (c) High Jump 3 feet (in three chances) (d) Long Jump 12 feet (in three chances) (e) Push ups (20) 4. It was further provided in the advertisement notice that only those candidates who will be found fit in physical measurement and possessing other prescribed standards will be allowed to compete in outdoor tests and the candidates who qualify in all the five items of outdoor tests as per the standard prescribed in the notification, shall have to appear in the literacy test. 5. In response to the aforesaid advertisement notice, the respondent writ petitioners applied for the post of Constable. Appellant No.3, thereafter constituted a Central Recruitment Board (here-in-after referred to as the Board) for initiating and completing the selection process, which comprised of AOG, Armed Police, J&K as its Chairman, DIG Crime, Jammu and one member from CPMF as the members of the said Board. The Chairman of the Board was empowered to co-opt any other officer to facilitate the recruitment process and speedy finalization of the selection list before 30th of April2003. The Range level selection boards were also constituted comprising of the officers of the Police department to assist the Board in the process of recruitment. 6. The Director General of Police, while constituting the recruitment boards for completing the selection process, also indicated the selection criteria in respect of the above advertisement notice for the post of Constable, which provided as follows: - (i) Height Total marks (15) a/ 56" 10 marks b/ 58" 12 marks c/ 510" 14 marks d/ 60" and above 15 marks (ii) Educational qualification Total marks (15) a/ Matric 10 marks b/ 10+2 12 marks c/ Graduation and above 15 marks (iii) Four marks each shall be given to the candidates possessing the following additional qualifications not exceeding 10 marks in any case. (Total marks 10) a/ "C" certificate in NCC b/ Driving licence c/ Diploma in typing (From any recognized Institute) d/ Diploma in Computer e/ Diploma from ITI in any trade." 7. The total marks in categories (i) (ii) and (iii) above were prescribed as 40 and the merit list was directed to be prepared in the order of marks secured by the candidates out of 40. The candidates were to be put to physical measurement test and other outdoor test as notified in the advertisement notice but no marks were allotted for these tests as the same were said to be qualifying in nature and it was prescribed that failure to qualify these tests will disqualify a candidate from appearing in other tests. 8. It was further provided that the selection lists should be restricted to the number of posts allotted to a district under different categories to be notified by the Police Headquarter separately. 9. So far as the selection to the post of followers was concerned, it was provided that the candidates who are to apply for the said post shall be put to a trade test to ascertain their proficiency in the trade for which they have applied. 10. The migrant candidates of Kashmir valley were to be put to the requisite tests by the Board in the concerned district where they are settled and the merit list in such cases was to be prepared separately on the basis of the performance of the candidates keeping in view of the quota allotted to their parent districts to which they originally belonged. The Chairman of the Board was to prepare the merit list of the candidates district-wise on the basis of their performance/merit with due representation to all the reserved categories as prescribed under the relevant Govt. orders from time to time and thereafter the merit lists were to be furnished by the Board to the Police Headquarter. Clause VIII of order dt. 6th of March03, referred to above is relevant and is reproduced below: - "VIII. The Chairman Central Recruitment Board will consolidate and prepare merit lists of the candidates District wise on the basis of their performance/merit with due representation to all reserved categories as prescribed under relevant Govt. orders form time to time, and furnish the merit lists duly authenticated by the Recruitment Board to PHQ for further necessary action." 11. The Chairman Central Recruitment Board will consolidate and prepare merit lists of the candidates District wise on the basis of their performance/merit with due representation to all reserved categories as prescribed under relevant Govt. orders form time to time, and furnish the merit lists duly authenticated by the Recruitment Board to PHQ for further necessary action." 11. The respondent-writ petitioners who appeared in the selection process were shown to be selected candidates in the select list issued and published by the appellant, were however, not offered appointment despite their selection. This was so because the selectees to whom additional points had been awarded were subjected to Trade Test and as they failed to qualify in the Trade Test, as such, awarded additional points for additional qualification were deducted from the over all merit. In cases of Scheduled Tribe candidates the benefit of age relaxation was not extended. The writ petitioners being aggrieved of being not appointed filed the said writ petitions for questioning the selection process. 12. Before the learned Writ Court for questioning the selection made and their non-selection for appointment, the respondents/ writ petitioners urged following three principal grounds: - (a) Tehsil-wise selection of the candidates for District Cadre posts of Constables was not legally permissible; (b) The selectees of select- list there being no such requirement of Advertisement Notice and Selection Criteria, could not validly be subjected to trade Test so as to re-judge their entitlement to the additional points earned on the basis of their additional qualification as per the selection criteria; (c) The maximum age limit prescribed by the Advertisement Notice was relaxable in respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates but the same was not relaxed. 13. The learned writ Court accepting the above grounds allowed the writ petitions in the manner already indicated, hence the State-appellant is in appeal. 14. Mr. Salathia, learned AAG for the State-appellant contended that in response to the advertisement notice thousands of applications were received. The applicants were to be subjected to various tests, therefore, in order to stream-line the selection process and to avoid the confusion to the candidates it was decided and accordingly the selections were made at Tehsil level, looking at the convenience of the candidates. According to Mr. Salathia, AAG selections were made at Tehsil Level which had not in any manner prejudiced the rights of the candidates. 15. Mr. According to Mr. Salathia, AAG selections were made at Tehsil Level which had not in any manner prejudiced the rights of the candidates. 15. Mr. Salathia however, does not dispute the fact that the post of Constable for which the selections were to be made was in District Cadre of the police. He also does not dispute that the select list was prepared at Tehsil Level on the merit of the candidates obtained at that level. 16. In our considered view the Tehsil-wise mode of selection adopted by the appellant for selection of the candidates for the District Cadre posts was legally not permissible. For District level post District-wise merit of the competing candidates was required to be made the basis for selecting the suitable candidates. This part even the selection criteria did not permit Tehsil-wise selection by the selection Board. The selection Board could not go in law beyond the selection criteria formulated by the appointing authority. For making the selection, the selection agency is bound to follow the selection criteria in accordance with which it is asked to make the selections. The competent authority in terms of clause VIII of order No. 941 dated 30-4-2003 mandated upon the Board to prepare the merit-list of the candidates District-wise. 17. In view of the above requirement of the selection criteria, the selection Board was not entitled to make Tehsil-wise merit list/select list. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal opportunities to all the eligible candidates to compete for the post. Adoption of Tehsil-wise selection resulted into the ouster of the candidates of the other Tehsils from the competition. Tehsil-wise restricted competition for a District cadre post was legally impermissible being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. Be it so the further fact of the matter is that all the writ petitioners/ respondents have participated in the selection process carried out at Tehsil level, without raising any objection to the mode of selection adopted. Had they been selected and appointed they would not have objected to the mode adopted. Therefore, mere fact that they have participated in the selection process dis-entitles them to turn round and say that the selection process should have been District Wise. 19. Had they been selected and appointed they would not have objected to the mode adopted. Therefore, mere fact that they have participated in the selection process dis-entitles them to turn round and say that the selection process should have been District Wise. 19. The learned Writ Court on finding the mode of Tehsil-wise selection not permissible under law, has directed the appellant-State to re-draw the merit of all the candidates District-wise. 20. In our considered view the re-drawing of District-wise merit in the circumstances of the case at this stage would be improper. More so when selection process was carried out in the year 2003 and large number of candidates selected (stated to be about two-thousands) have come to be appointed, it would not be in the interest of justice now to re-open the issue of selection as a whole and that too at the behest of the writ petitioners who have participated in the selection process without any objection or protest. 21. The next contention of Mr. Salathia, AAG is that as per the selection criteria, the candidates who submitted the additional qualification certificates and had been awarded additional points as per the selection criteria were subjected to trade test by the Commandant of the concerned Battalion to adjudge their actual proficiency in the field for which they had been awarded the additional points. The learned Single Judge has held the subjecting of the selectees to trade test and deduction of the additional points from their over all merit as illegal by observing as follows: "It is admitted case of the parties that when the selection was made, the petitioners were not put to trade test for their additional qualification. Four marks were awarded to the petitioners for possessing additional qualification in their respective trade. After adding the four additional marks, petitioner No. 1 was at S. No. 6 in the general Category candidates of Kathua Tehsil, whereas petitioner 2 and 3 were at Serial Nos. 4 and 8 respectively in the General Category candidates of Kathua Tehsil, whereas petitioner 2 and 3 were at Serial Nos. 4 and 8 respectively in the General Category candidates of Tehsil Hiranagar and they were in the select list above the private respondents. They were again put to trade test, but they failed. 4 and 8 respectively in the General Category candidates of Kathua Tehsil, whereas petitioner 2 and 3 were at Serial Nos. 4 and 8 respectively in the General Category candidates of Tehsil Hiranagar and they were in the select list above the private respondents. They were again put to trade test, but they failed. The four marks awarded to them at the time of selection were deducted and therefore, they were not given appointment. But as per the procedure laid down, respondent No. 5 cannot deduct these four marks awarded to them for their additional qualification. After the selection and the declaration of the result, the respondents have no right to put the petitioners again to a practical test for adjudging their suitability for the said posts." 22. As per the selection criteria a candidate who possesses any one or more of the additional qualifications specified is entitled to be awarded 4 points for each qualification but not more than 10 points in all, provided he furnished the certificate of competent authority in respect of such qualification. It is not in dispute that selection Board awarded additional points for additional qualification to those candidates who submitted the requisite certificates. On the basis of overall merit of such candidates which included the additional points awarded for additional qualification, who made the grade were put in the select list issued and published by the appellant. By inclusion of their names in the select list they became entitled to be considered for appointment. Respondents instead of appointing them subject them to trade test. 23. Mr. Salathia, AAG for submitting that it was competent for the appointing authority to subject the selectees to trade test relies upon Order No. 941 of 2003 issued by the Director General of Police. 24. We have noticed the said order and in our considered view reliance upon the said order by Mr. Salathia is mis-placed. Trade test envisaged by the said order is for the post of Follower and not for the post of Constable. From the bare reading of the selection criteria and the advertisement notice, it is manifest that none of them prescribed for further subjection of the selectees for the post of constables, to any trade test, for re-judging their entitlement to additional points for additional qualification. From the bare reading of the selection criteria and the advertisement notice, it is manifest that none of them prescribed for further subjection of the selectees for the post of constables, to any trade test, for re-judging their entitlement to additional points for additional qualification. In the absence of such a requirement either of the advertisement notice or of the selection criteria, the deduction of additional points awarded to the candidates on the basis of their performance in the trade test is patently illegal. The awarding of the additional points as per the selection criteria depended upon the production of the requisite certificates issued by the competent authority but not upon the performance of a candidate in the trade test. 25. We therefore, hold that it was not legally competent for the appellants to subject those candidates of the select list, who had been awarded additional points on the basis of their additional qualification, to trade test and consequently to deduct the additional points out of their over all merit on the basis of their performance in the trade test. 26. We are therefore, in full agreement with the learned Single Judge that the appellant could not have legally deducted the awarded additional points for additional qualification from the over all merit of such candidates who failed in the trade test. 27. Next contention of Mr. Salathia is that the candidates competing under the reserved categories were entitled to reservation of posts for them in the ratio prescribed by the reservation rules framed under SRO 126 of 1994 and not to the relaxation of age. He submits that for being eligible for the post of Constable, it is necessary for a candidate to be in the age limit prescribed by the advertisement notice which is as per Rule 182 read with Rule 176 of Police Rules, which deals with the age and physical standards of the recruits. Rule 182 provides that the physical standard and age of the candidates for enrolment as Constables shall be the same as for other ranks as mentioned in Rule 176, except in case of the female candidates. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 176 clause (iv) provides as follows: - "(iv) Age according to the Matriculation certificate. The applicant must be between 18 and (28) years of age. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 176 clause (iv) provides as follows: - "(iv) Age according to the Matriculation certificate. The applicant must be between 18 and (28) years of age. The age limit will be reckoned as on the first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made." 28. Thus the age limit prescribed for the post of Constable is that he should be between 18 to 28 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made. No provision has been made either in Rule 176, 182 or in any other rule of the Police Rules framed under the Police Act for providing relaxation of upper age limit in respect of SC/ST candidates. On the issue of relaxation of age the learned Single Judge observed as follows: - "The maximum age of the SC/ST candidates for recruitment to a civil post, as per Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, will be 38 years, as against General Category Candidates, whose maximum age has been prescribed as 35 years. Whereas in Rule 176 of tie Police Rules, the maximum age of a candidate to be recruited as Constable in Police Force has been prescribed as 28 years in terms of Rule 182 of the Police Rules. Police Rules are silent on the issue of giving relaxation to the SC/ST candidates to be recruited as Police Officers/Officials, including the Constables, in the Police Force. However, the maximum age for SC/SC candidates, to be recruited as Constables in the Police Force, can be considered to be relaxed upto 33 years, giving relaxation of five years, in terms of Chapter-V-Relaxation and Concessions for Scheduled Castes- of the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes in Services, issued by the General Department, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 1994." 29. We have gone through the Reservation Rules framed under SRO 126 OF 1994. We have gone through the Reservation Rules framed under SRO 126 OF 1994. There is no provision in the rules which provides for different age limit for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates or for relaxation of the age limit in their favour. Nor Art. 17 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 any where lays down that for SC/ST candidates age limit shall be 38 years against the 35 years age in respect of General Category candidates. 30. Mr. Raina, learned Senior counsel submits that in terms of Chapter-V of Brochure of Reservation issued by the General Administration Department the age limit for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates has been relaxed by five years. The said provision reads as follows:- "Age limit: Circular No. 8 Inspections dated 21-8-1974 issued by the General Department Art. 37-B (ii) J&K CSR: The maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruitment to a service or post shall be increased by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. Upper age limit shall also be relaxed by five years in respect of Scheduled Castes in the matter of appointments by promotion to a service/post where such age limit has been prescribed." 31. From the bare reading of the above brochure, it transpires that the brochure issued by the General Administration Department is not a statutory enactment. In the Brochure only the position envisaged by the provision made in Civil Services Regulation made in regard to Scheduled Caste candidates has been iterated. The Brochure on the point of increasing the recruitment age in respect of the Scheduled Caste Candidates refers to Article 37 (2) of J&K Civil Services Regulation. Article 37 (2) referred to in the Brochure appears to be as it was existing on the date i.e. 21-4-1974, when circular No. 8 was issued. Later on Article 37 (2) came to be amended by SRO 23 of 1991 dated 14-1-1991, and now it reads as follows: - "37 (2) Considering the limitation to which Scheduled Caste candidates are put the age limit for direct recruitment in their case shall be 32 years against 30 years except in cases where direct competitions are prescribed and in which case the maximum age limit for such candidates as may have been raised suitably for each service, in the respective recruitment rules, will apply." 32. After Article 37 (2) Article 37 (3) has come to be framed which reads as follows: - "37 (3) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in Article 37 (1) and 37 (2) the following maximum age limits shall apply (and shall always be deemed to have applied from 16-12-1988) in respect of direct recruits to Government service in all the subordinate and Gazetted services on the first day of the January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which direct recruitment is made: Category Maximum age (i) General Candidates 35 years (ii) Physically handicapped 37 years (iii) Members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 38 years (iv) Candidates already in Government Service 38 years Provided that the age limits as shown above against each category may be relaxed by the competent authority in respect of any individual case on the merits of each case: Provided further that the Government may in respect of any particular service prescribe in different age limit." 33. From the above quoted Article, it is manifest that ordinarily for recruitment to the Subordinate and Gazetted Services, the age limit in respect of the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Category has to be 38 years as against the age of 35 years of General Category candidates. But this is however, subject to the condition that Government has not provided any different age limit for any particular service. In view of the said provision Article 37 (3) can have application to the case where the Government has not provided the different age limit for the post of Constable. In the instant case the Government has prescribed the age limit of 28 years in terms of Rule 176 read with Rule 182 of the Police Rules. 34. Therefore, in our considered opinion Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates cannot claim validly that their age limit should be different than the one prescribed by the advertisement notice or by Rule 176. We therefore, cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates to be recruited for the post of constable in police force, the upper age limit would be 33 years and not 28 years. 35. We therefore, cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates to be recruited for the post of constable in police force, the upper age limit would be 33 years and not 28 years. 35. For the afore-said reasons, we partly allow this appeal and accordingly modify the judgment under appeal to the extent indicated above. We direct that the appellant shall restore the benefit of additional points to those writ petitioners to whom it stood awarded and there-after to re-determine their merit. In case their merit is found to be above or equal to the last selected candidate in their category, they shall be declared selected and appointment orders shall be issued in their favour forthwith. In such case they shall be deemed to have been appointed, from the date the other selectees of the select list were appointed. They shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, except the monetary benefits.