Per Mansoor, J.;— CDLSW No. 139/2011 in LPASW No. 233/2011 1. Learned counsel for the private-respondents stated at the Bar that the Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. LPASW No. 231/2011, LPASW No. 229/2011, LPASW No. 230/2011, are listed for admission today in the regular cause list and the present appeal is also outcome of a common judgment, which is impugned in the said Appeal and prayed that the delay be condoned and this Appeal be also taken up for consideration along with the said appeals. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 2. Limitation Petition is disposed of. 3. Appeals are taken up on Board. LPASW No. 233/2011, LPASW No. 229/2011, LPASW No. 230/2011. LPASW No. 231/2011. 4. These Appeals are directed against a common Judgment/Order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Writ Court whereby and where-under four Writ Petitions bearing nos. SWP Nos. 1144/2008,1172/2008,1354/2008, and 1375/2008, came to be granted (for short, impugned judgment). 5. The respondent-Board had issued Notifications dated 28th December, 2006 and 5th October, 2007, whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for making selection and appointment against the posts of Physical Education Teacher in different Districts. In the said notifications, the education qualification prescribed was 10+2 with Technical qualification C.P.Ed. 6. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have not applied in pursuance to the said Advertisement Notices, but selection was kept in eclipse and was not taken to its logical end because of inter se communication between the respondent-Board/appellant and the intending department. In the meantime, respondent-Board also issued one more Notification bearing No. 06 of 2008 dated 28th May, 2008 for filling up the posts of Physical Education Teacher in different Districts and prescribed academic qualification was Matriculation with Technical qualification C.P.Ed. The writ petitioners, at that point of time, had turned overage and, thus, were not in a position to respond, though, it is contended that they approached the respondents, but they have not accepted their applications, which constrained them to file the Writ Petitions. 7. The writ petitioners, at that point of time, had turned overage and, thus, were not in a position to respond, though, it is contended that they approached the respondents, but they have not accepted their applications, which constrained them to file the Writ Petitions. 7. It would be appropriate to reproduce relief sought for by the writ petitioners in their Writ Petitions herein as under: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of the writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for relaxation of upper age limit in their favour for the post of Physical Education Teacher pending consideration. (ii) For further writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process for the post of Physical Education Teacher in view of the advertisement notice No. 06 of 2008 dated 28.5.2008. (iii) For further writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accord the benefit of Govt. Order No. 1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000 to the petitioners for relaxation of the upper age limit for the post aforesaid. (iv) Further writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 2 to select and recommend the petitioners for appointment as Physical Education Teachers incase the prayer of the petitioners for relaxation of upper age limit is considered by the respondents no. 1 & 4. 8. Writ Court vide interim order dated 20th August, 2008 directed the respondents to entertain the applications of the writ petitioners and conduct their interview with a further direction not to declare their results. 9. The respondent-Board filed objections and resisted the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners had not applied in pursuance to notifications issued in the years 2006 and 2007 and have also not sought any relief seeking direction from the writ Court to allow them to appear and contest in the said selection process despite of the fact that selection process was not taken to its logical end till notification of 2008 was issued. 10. The respondent-Board/appellant has issued notification on 6th February, 2009, whereby all those aspirants, who had not applied in response to the notification nos. 10. The respondent-Board/appellant has issued notification on 6th February, 2009, whereby all those aspirants, who had not applied in response to the notification nos. 03 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 and 03 of 2007 dated 05.10.2007, on account of prescription of Higher Academic Qualification, were given chance to apply provided they were within age limit as on 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007 respectively. The writ petitioners have not availed the said remedy, therefore, cannot seek relaxation of upper age limit under law. 11. It is also resisted on the ground that Government Order No. 1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000 is not applicable to the writ petitioners because it applies to those, who possess exceptional qualification. The writ petitioners have nowhere pleaded that they are exceptionally qualified and were entitled to the benefit of said Government order. But what is pleaded by them is that they could not apply because of the prescription of qualification of 10+2, which was not in accordance with rules applicable. And respondent-Board/appellant herein has not issued notifications from time to time, thus, have caused wrong to the writ petitioners and are entitled to the relief sought. 12. Respondent-Board/appellant has specifically pleaded in the reply that the advertisement notifications were issued from time to time. Further it is contended that failure to refer vacancy(ies) cannot be a ground to consider the case of the writ petitioners for relaxation of upper age limit. If the department has committed any default, that may be a ground to draw action against defaulter i.e erring author-ity(ies), but it does not create any indefeasible right, in favour of the writ petitioners. It would be appropriate to reproduce Rules 2 & 4 of SRO-166 dated 14th June, 2005 herein: "2. Reference of vacancies. (1) The Departments shall refer vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota to Public Services Commission and Services Selection Board, as the case may be, by 15th of January every year;.............................. 4. Nodal Officer. (2) The annual Status Report shall be reviewed in the General Administration Department. Non-compliance or non-implementation of these rules shall be deemed to be dereliction of duty by the Administrative Department and consequences thereof shall follow." 13. Rule 4 of SRO 166 mandates that non-compliance or non-implementation of SRO 166 by the concerned Administrative Department is dereliction of duty and is liable for consequences. 14. Non-compliance or non-implementation of these rules shall be deemed to be dereliction of duty by the Administrative Department and consequences thereof shall follow." 13. Rule 4 of SRO 166 mandates that non-compliance or non-implementation of SRO 166 by the concerned Administrative Department is dereliction of duty and is liable for consequences. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners-private respondents stated at bar that it is fact that writ petitioners are not exceptionally qualified, thus, Government order No. 1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000 cannot be pressed into service and, accordingly, made a statement that he is not pressing the relief sought in the writ petitions in terms of Government order (supra). His statement is taken on record. 15. In the given circumstances, the core question involved in these Appeals is, as to whether, the writ petitioners are entitled to relaxation as prayed for and be considered for selection/appointments in terms of notification No. 06 of 2008 dated 28th May, 2008. The answer is in negative for the following reasons: 16. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were not eligible at the relevant point of time, i.e., on 01.01.2008 and have not prayed for allowing them to participate in the selection process drawn, in terms of notification Nos. 03 of 2006 and 03 of 2007. They have not also availed opportunity, which was given to them in terms of notification dated 6th February, 2009. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the notification dated 6th February, 2009 herein: "Subject: Posts of Physical Education Teacher advertised vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 0/2006 dated 28.12.2006 and 03 of 2007 dated 5.10.2007. Whereas the requisition of the Directorate of youth services and sports, J&K, the Service Selection Board vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 Advertised Posts of Physical Education Teachers for various districts of the State. The number of posts category wise break up and the qualification prescribed is shown against each District in the following table:.................. Whereas the requisition of the Directorate of youth services and sports, J&K, the Service Selection Board vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 Advertised Posts of Physical Education Teachers for various districts of the State. The number of posts category wise break up and the qualification prescribed is shown against each District in the following table:.................. Whereas, in view of the clarification given by the Technical Education Department, it has been decided to undo the wrong by allowing all such candidates who could not apply for the post of Physical Education Teacher in response to the advertisement notices No. 03 of 2006, dated 28.12.2006 and 03 of 2007, dated 05.10.2007 on account of the prescription of Higher Academic and Sports related qualification to submit their application forms subject to the conditions that they fulfill all other eligibility qualifications such as Educational and Sports and were also within the prescribed age limit as on 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007 respectively. Now, therefore, in view of the above, it is hereby notified for the information of all the concerned candidates who could not apply for the post of Physical Education Teacher in response to the advertisement notices No. 03 of 2006, dated 28.12.2006 and 03 of 2007 dated 05.10.2007 on account of the prescription of Higher Academic and Sports related Qualifications to collect the application forms from the J&K Bank Branches and deposit the same in the offices of Administrative officers SSB Divisional Office Srinagar/Jammu within three(3) weeks from the date of publication of this Notice in the press. The candidature of the applying candidates shall be considered against the post of Physical Education Teacher in the Districts in which the said posts were advertised vide advertisement Notice Nos. 03 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 and 03 of 2007 dated 05.10.2007. However, in addition the consideration to the eligible candidates shall also be given against the posts advertised vide advertisement notice No. 06 of 2008 da ted 28.05.2008 provided the candidates are within the prescribed age limit as onOl.01.2008. Failure to submit the application forms within the prescribed period shall tender the candidates ineligible for any consideration against the said post." 17. Failure to submit the application forms within the prescribed period shall tender the candidates ineligible for any consideration against the said post." 17. If at all, the writ petitioners were not in a position to apply because of the prescription of Higher Academic Qualification i.e 10+2 in the said two notifications, they could have availed opportunity in terms of notification 2009 (supra), which they have failed. 18. Keeping in view the statement (supra) made by learned counsel for the writ petitioners-private respondents herein, the very foundation of the writ petitioners is dashed to the ground. 19. In the given circumstances, the writ petitioners have not carved out a case for relaxation of upper age limit, the writ petitioners were over aged as on 01.01.2008, cannot seek direction for allowing them to participate in the selection process initiated in terms of notification No. 06 of 2008, at the best they could have sought direction for allowing them to participate in the selection process initiated in terms of notification nos. 03 of 2006 and 03 of 2007, which they have not prayed for. 20. It is also appropriate to mention here that the writ petitioners have not arrayed all those candidates who stand selected/appointed vide advertisement notification no. 06 of 2008, thus, the writ petitions suffer from non-joinder and mis-joiner of party(ies). 21. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the writ Court has fallen in error. Accordingly, impugned Judgment is set aside and the Appeals are allowed along with connected CMA(s) and the writ petitions are dismissed.