Per Hali, J. 1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the appointment against the post of Soil Conservation Assistants (Engineering), Bio-Gas Engineers and Technical Assis­tants, required to be filled up by direct recruitment. 2. In order to address the controversy as raised in the present appeal, it would be relevant to note some facts, which are as under:- 3. The process for appointment to the above posts initially was initiated by the Public Service Commission in the year 1997. An advertisement notification dt. 4th of Dec'97, came to be issued in this regard, whereby 44 posts of Soil Conservation Assistants (Engineering) in the Agriculture Department were advertised, which posts were required to be filled up in accordance with the eligibility criteria as contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Agriculture (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1988). The Schedule appended to the said Rules provided 100% direct recruitment to the said post and the qualification prescribed is B.Sc. Agriculture Engineering from a recognized Institute/University. This notification was subject matter of challenge in a writ petition bearing SWP No. 93/98. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners in the above writ petition was that, in case, the appointment is made to the above post by direct recruitment, they may have to face reversion, which is likely to affect their service career. It was contended that they were sent on training by the State Government in various Institutes of Agricultural Research and after completion of training, they were posted against the said posts and were performing the duties on various soil conservations works. It was stated that in terms of the Rules of 1978, they were holding the post of Soil Conservation Assistant and were appointed against the said post by transfer. Specific challenge was made that there was no post available for direct recruits as the said post was being manned by the writ petitioners in the above writ petition, appellants in the present appeal. 5. A learned Single Judge of this court while dealing with the issues raised by the present appellants in the above writ petition, dismissed the same vide order dt. 9th of Feb'98. The plea raised in .the aforementioned petition was found to be without merit. 5. A learned Single Judge of this court while dealing with the issues raised by the present appellants in the above writ petition, dismissed the same vide order dt. 9th of Feb'98. The plea raised in .the aforementioned petition was found to be without merit. In the Letters Patent Appeal, which was preferred against the aforementioned judgment, bearing LPASW No. 322/98, this court upheld the order passed by the learned writ court, vide order dt. 22nd of Feb'99, with the following observations:- "The selected candidates are only 44 in number and the appellants being already the members of the service and working as AEO and AAs, shall not be affected in case the selected candidates join. Appellants can well be adjusted by the respondents against the posts on which they have been appointed in the department as AEO and AAs. Appellants have no right to seek protection that they should remain posted and continued as SCAs on the ground that they have been appointed by transfer to the said posts/service. No right of the appellants is infringed by issuance of the notification for selection and appointment to the posts of SCAs from Agriculture Engineering graduates. We do not find any substance in the appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the order under appeal does not warrant interference". 6. It was also observed by this court while dismissing the appeal aforemen­tioned that plea of appellants that the Government Order No. 18-Agri of 1998 dt. 12th of Jan'98, directing the posts of SCAs to be filled up in the ratio of 50:50 from amongst the B.Sc. Agriculture (Engineering) and B.Sc. (Agri) Graduates, is illegal, cannot be accepted as no challenge has been thrown to the said Government Order nor there was any pleading to that effect in the writ petition. 7. The present appellants, who were the appellants in the aforementioned appeal also, questioned the above referred Government Order dt. 12th of Jan'98, as also the notification No.09 PSC of 2006 dt. 28th of Dec'06, whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg), Bio Gas Engineer and Technical Assistants, in the writ petition out of which present appeal has arisen. 12th of Jan'98, as also the notification No.09 PSC of 2006 dt. 28th of Dec'06, whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg), Bio Gas Engineer and Technical Assistants, in the writ petition out of which present appeal has arisen. The ground of challenge taken in the writ petition (SWP No.265/07) was that the Rules of 1988, do not prescribe any such ratio of 50:50, as has been contained in Government Order dt. 12th of Jan'98. It was contended that in terms of Schedule-I attached to the Rules of 1988, there are only 6- posts of Soil Conservation Assistant, 12 posts of Assistant Engineer, Bio Gas and 4 posts of Technical Assistant. It does not make reference of the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engineering), and as there is no such post, it can be safely said that no appointment can be made against a non existing post. 8. The aforementioned plea of the appellants has been rejected by a learned Single Judge of this court vide impugned judgment dt. 28th of March'08, with the following observations:- "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. It is true that Schedule-I appended to J&K Agriculture (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, speaks of only 60 posts of Soil Conservation Assistants and does not make any reference to the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engineering), yet the fact remains that Schedule II in clause-VII attached to the Rules of 1988, refers to both the classes of posts i.e. one Soil Conservation Assistant (Non-Engg) and Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg) and Technical Assistant, Agri. Engineer. Merely because, Schedule-I does not speak of the post of Soil Conservation Assistant, it does not mean that there cannot be any post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.) in the Agriculture Department. The post of Soil Conservation Assistant men­tioned in Schedule-I would cover both the posts i.e. Soil Conservation Assistant (Non-Engg) and Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.)." 9. It is against the above judgment passed by the learned writ court, the present appeal has been filed. 10. Looking to the stand of the respondents taken in the objections filed to the writ petition, it is apparent that out of 91 posts, 44 posts were required to be filled up from amongst the category of direct recruits. Only 16 candidates were selected in the selection process initiated in the year 1997. 10. Looking to the stand of the respondents taken in the objections filed to the writ petition, it is apparent that out of 91 posts, 44 posts were required to be filled up from amongst the category of direct recruits. Only 16 candidates were selected in the selection process initiated in the year 1997. Thereafter, vide notification issued on 15th of Feb'2000, 29 posts of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engineering) were referred by the Agriculture Department to the Commission for filling up the same under direct recruitment quota as these vacancies had remained unfilled. However, vide selection process initiated in the year 2000 in pursuance to notification No.6-PSC of 2000, dt. 6th of March'2000, only four candidates were recommended for selection in the open category but appointment of one of the candidate was cancelled on account of a fake certificate submitted by him. It was further stated in the objections that left over 23 vacancies were re-advertised vide notification which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition out of which present appeal has arisen. 11. In view of the above facts, the respondents are right in their contention that the above vacancies fall in the quota of direct recruits, the appellants-writ petition­ers cannot have any grievance more particularly, when the issue raised in the present appeal, stands already decided against them by a learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dt. 9th of Sept'98, upheld by this court vide judgment dt.22nd of Feb'99, referred to above. 12. Coming to the next question regarding providing of 50:50 ratio for B.Sc. Agriculture Engineer Graduates and B.Sc. Agriculture Graduates in terms of order dt. 12th of Jan'98, it be seen that even though, the rules do not prescribe any such ratio in this regard, but the State, as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of its executive power can prescribe this ratio, which cannot be faulted. The said order, as such, is held to be not violative of Rules of 1988, but supplements the said Rules. As has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Non-Engg.) has been mentioned in Clause VII(u) and that of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.)/Technical Assistant Agriculture Engineering has been mentioned in Clause VII(2) of Schedule 1 lot Rules of 1988. As has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Non-Engg.) has been mentioned in Clause VII(u) and that of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.)/Technical Assistant Agriculture Engineering has been mentioned in Clause VII(2) of Schedule 1 lot Rules of 1988. For the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Non-Engg.), the recruitment is 50% by way of direct and 50% by promotion and the requisite qualification pre­scribed is B.Sc. Agriculture from a Recognised institute/University. So far as the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.)/Technical Assistant (Engg.) is con­cerned, the requisite qualification so prescribed is B.Sc. Agriculture Engineering. Any candidate who is not possessed of the said qualification is not entitled to seek consideration against the above posts of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.) or Technical Assistant Agriculture Engineering. In the present case also, the appellants admittedly are Agriculture Graduates (Non-Engg.), and thus, are not eligible to hold the post of SCA (Engineering/Technical Assistant Agriculture (Engg.), as provided in Clause VII (2) of Schedule II of Rules of 1988. 13. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment, has rightly observed that the appellants are not possessed of the requisite qualification as prescribed for the post of Soil Conservation Assistant (Engg.), as such, cannot lay any claim for the said post and it has to be filled in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.