1. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking to quash Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2012 dated 19.07.2012 issued by respondent no. 2 and also to consider them for their appointments under Prime Ministers' Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants to the Kashmir Valley. 2. It is contended that the petitioners are migrants. They are qualified, eligible and entitled to be appointed against the posts created by the State Government under the Prime Minister's package for the return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants vide Government orders, whereby J&K Service Selection Board was authorized to make selection against non-gazetted posts, except class IV posts. Petitioners, being migrants, also applied and the select list was prepared and issued by respondent no. 2. It is stated that out of 2120 selected candidates, 762 candidates did not join. Thus, the said posts have remained unfilled because of non-joining of certain selected candidates. It is also submitted that category posts were also de-reserved vide Government Order No. Rev/MR/170 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011. The petitioners, who are figuring in the list, were entitled to be appointed against the said vacant posts on the grounds taken in the writ petition. However, the respondents instead of redressing the grievances of the petitioners have issued fresh advertisement notice dated 19.07.2012. Accordingly, it is prayed that the same be quashed being in violation of SRO 412 of 2009 dated 13.12.2009 and the other applicable laws. 3. Respondent no. 2 has filed objections resisting the petition. Mr. Shah, learned Dy. A.G., stated that the objections filed by respondent no. 2 be also treated as objections on behalf of respondents 1,3 & 4. He further argued that it is a fact that the posts were created under the Prime Minister's Package, but were to be filled up in terms of the rules applicable governing the selections made by respondent no. 2. The selection was made by respondent no. 2 in the month of August 2010 and a waiting list was also issued. However, 826 posts, which were reserved for categories, remained unfilled due to non-availability of suitable candidates and some posts also remained vacant because of non-joining of certain selected candidates. Thus, a total of 1055 posts remained unfilled under the said package. 2 in the month of August 2010 and a waiting list was also issued. However, 826 posts, which were reserved for categories, remained unfilled due to non-availability of suitable candidates and some posts also remained vacant because of non-joining of certain selected candidates. Thus, a total of 1055 posts remained unfilled under the said package. The petitioners are not falling in the waiting list and the life of waiting list was only for one year in terms of Rule 10(vii) of SRO 194. Thus the respondents have rightly issued the advertisement notice. 4. The petitioners are seeking their appointment de hors the rules. Respondent no. 2 has specifically averred that it is a fact that 1055 posts have remained unfilled. However, respondent no. 2 has no power to make appointments against those posts because the life of waiting list has already expired. Petitioners having laid no claim under the reserved categories could not be appointed against those posts as per the clarification given by the revenue department vide communication dated 25.08.2011. In the reply it is stated that the selection and adjustment of candidates from the earlier merit list would result in unfair selection and would be at the cost of and prejudicial to those candidates who would have acquired requisite qualification during the intervening period, inasmuch as they would be deprived of an opportunity of competing in the selection process. Further, it is stated that the life of waiting list has already expired in terms of Rule 10(vii) of SRO 194. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made and the law applicable, it is a fact that the life of select list has come to an end. In case the petitioners are appointed against those posts that would amount to depriving the candidates who have acquired the requisite qualification during the intervening period. Further, the waiting list has expired. It may be noticed here that the advertisement notice contains relaxation clause and has taken care of candidates who have already attained the age of 37 years. 6. In the given circumstances, the petitioners have failed to carve out a case for admission. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine along with all CMPs.