1. Vide advertisement notice no. 4 of 1999 dated 27.12.1999 applications for various posts were invited on prescribed format, details of which are given in the said notice. In the said notification, 13 posts of Junior Stenographer in the General Administrative Department were put to advertisement, for which applications were invited from the eligible candidates. The eligibility criteria provided for the purpose of qualification was 10+2 with 65/35 words per minute speed in shorthand and typing respectively. Being eligible for the said post, the petitioner had also applied in pursuance to the aforementioned advertisement notice. 2. Shorthand and type test was conducted and the petitioner had qualified the same, as a result of which, he was called for interview. In pursuance of the select list prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board, Jammu appointments were made to the exclusion of petitioner. Private respondent Nos. 4 to 11 were appointed as Junior Stenographers. It is this order of appointment, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had qualified the written test with 65.6 words speed in shorthand and 60 words speed in type test per minute and the selected respondents, particularly respondents No. 7 & 9 did not obtain minimum speed in shorthand, which was 65 words per minute, but despite that they were appointed. 4. On the other hand, respondents contend that the petitioner did not make the grade, as he has secured 84.50 marks, whereas the selected candidates have obtained 89.00 and above marks in the selection process. In face of this, he could not be selected and the persons with better merit were selected. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner could not challenge the criteria after having participated in the selection process. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the face value of stand taken by the respondents, it reveals that the petitioner admittedly has secured lesser marks than the selected respondents. Deeper scrutiny in the matter would reveal that the selection of respondents No. 7 & 9 was not in accordance with the eligibility set out in the notification. Admittedly, the appointments are required to be made in the General Administrative Department. Deeper scrutiny in the matter would reveal that the selection of respondents No. 7 & 9 was not in accordance with the eligibility set out in the notification. Admittedly, the appointments are required to be made in the General Administrative Department. For the purpose of making appointments to the said service, the eligibility provided under the notification being that a person should be 10+2 with 65/35 words speed per minute in shorthand/type respectively. This in fact was basic eligibility provided under the said notification. If a person obtains speed of 65 words per minute in Shorthand and 35 words per minute in typing, he would be eligible to be called for interview. 7. The record produced by the respondents show that respondents No. 7 & 9 did not obtain minimum speed of 65 words per minute in shorthand as was required under the eligibility criteria provided under the said notification. Respondents No. 7 & 9 have obtained 64.8 and 61.00 speed in the shorthand respectively. Looking at it, the said respondents could not be called for interview, as they did not satisfy the conditions of eligibility as per the notification. 8. A communication dated 31.03.1994 addressed by the Secretary, Service Selection Board to the Secretary to Government General Administration Department, Jammu has been placed on record by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been stated that one time exception of 6% mistakes be permitted to ensure that more people can qualify the test. This was only one time exception looking into the exigency prevailing at that time. 9. However, the respondents neither filed any reply to the supplementary affidavit nor they have stated any where in the reply that the selections of respondents No. 7 & 9 have been done after providing 6% mistakes. Specific plea was raised by the petitioner in Para 10 of the writ petition that 6% mistakes in Shorthand have been allowed in the present selection. In reply to that the respondents have neither admitted it nor have they said that 6% relaxation was given in the present case. 10. The question arises is that whether such relaxation was permissible, more particularly, when no such stipulation was in the advertisement notice? Connected with this question is that whether power of relaxation has any statutory backing. 11. In reply to that the respondents have neither admitted it nor have they said that 6% relaxation was given in the present case. 10. The question arises is that whether such relaxation was permissible, more particularly, when no such stipulation was in the advertisement notice? Connected with this question is that whether power of relaxation has any statutory backing. 11. The answer to the first question is that no such relaxation was permissible, as notification did not indicate the same. It is also born from the record that there is no statutory backing for such relaxation. Respondents have not shown as to whether the power to relax the conditions of eligibility can be changed by allowing 6% mistakes. The nature of posts is relatable to the speed in shorthand and typing. If a person qualifies the basic eligibility test then he is entitled to be selected for the post. By permitting 6% mistakes, this basic eligibility is being relaxed, which in my opinion tantamounts relaxation of basic eligibility for recruitment. As a matter of fact, the appointment of Junior Stenographers in General Administrative Department is governed by Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Subordinate) Service, Rules, 1998. The basic eligibility provided under the said Rules is 65/35 words speed per minute in Stenography and typing respectively. The powers to relax should emanate from statute itself. If so, the respondents have not categorically stated in their reply affidavit as to how private respondents 7 & 9 were called for interview and selected once they failed to satisfy the basic eligibility of obtaining 65 words per minute speed in shorthand. 12. Assuming that the respondents have taken support of the communication dated 31.3.1999 as contended by the petitioner, this would also not help the respondents as it was only one time exception. The effect of this relaxation has resulted in the selections of the respondents No. 7 & 9. Admittedly, they were not eligible for such appointment after having failed to obtain the basic eligibility as provided under the advertisement notice, as also under rules. It is settled proposition of law that statutory rules made under Article 309 proviso would assume primacy over notification or circular issued in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution. 13. Admittedly, they were not eligible for such appointment after having failed to obtain the basic eligibility as provided under the advertisement notice, as also under rules. It is settled proposition of law that statutory rules made under Article 309 proviso would assume primacy over notification or circular issued in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution. 13. I, accordingly, hold that appointments of respondents No. 7 & 9 were not proper, as they failed to secure 65 words per minute speed in shorthand, whereas the petitioner had obtained 65.6 marks in shorthand. Having failed to obtain minimum speed as provided under the notification, they could not be called for interview, as such, their selection was bad. 14. I therefore, direct that respondents will consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Jr. Stenographer. Consequently, selection of private respondents no. 7 & 9 would stand quashed. However, if the petitioner can be adjusted without disturbing the selection of private respondents 7 & 9, in that eventuality they shall not be disturbed. Let this exercise be completed within four months from the date copy of this order received by the respondents. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP(s) if any.