Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Sh.Bansi Lal son of Sh. Ram Saran R/o Village Kainthi, Tehsil and District Ramban (herein respondent No.1), responded under RBA category to advertisement Notice No.3/1997 dated 29th April, 1997 issued by Secretary J&K Services Selection Board inviting applications from eligible candidates for post of Technical Assistants' in J&K Energy Development Agency (Science and Technology), Government of Jammu and Kashmir. He participated in the selection process, was called for interview but did not find place in the select list. 2. Aggrieved with his non selection, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition being No.2713/2001. The respondent's case was that in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules notified vide SRO No.126 of 1994, though 3 of 12 advertised posts were to be kept for candidates applying under Reserved Backward Area category, yet the appellant-Board filled up 7 of 12 advertised posts from Open merit category and only two posts from reserved backward area category as against three posts available under Reservation Rules. Respondent No.1 in the said backdrop, sought a writ of certiorari quashing selection of the last selected candidate under Open Merit category (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Board to declare him selected against the post under reserved backward area category. 3. The writ petition was opposed by the Board on the ground that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had not appended/attached ITI marks certificate with his application and was not therefore awarded any points for two years vocational training course undergone at ITI Ramban. It is pleaded that even if the mark sheet produced by the petitioner after his interview was taken to be correct, the respondent/petitioner was at third place in the order of merit under RBA category and had no right to claim selection and appointment against the third post under RBA category. 4. The writ court found merit in the respondent/writ petitioner's case that 3 out of the 12 advertised posts were required to be kept by the appellant-Board for reserved backward area candidates in terms of J&K Reservation Rules (SRO 126) and that selection of 7 candidates under Open Merit category in the petition was unjustified. 4. The writ court found merit in the respondent/writ petitioner's case that 3 out of the 12 advertised posts were required to be kept by the appellant-Board for reserved backward area candidates in terms of J&K Reservation Rules (SRO 126) and that selection of 7 candidates under Open Merit category in the petition was unjustified. The writ court did not find any substance in the case advanced by the appellant-Board in opposition to the writ petition to the effect that as respondent/writ petitioner had not attached mark sheet with application, he did not deserve to be considered for the advertised post. The writ court found that though the respondent/writ petitioner did not attach the mark sheet with the application yet he had mentioned his marks in the application and having been found eligible and called for interview, he did not deserve to be chased out of the selection process on the ground of his failure to enclose ITI mark sheet with his application. 5. The objection raised by the appellant to the writ petition on the ground that as the respondent/writ petitioner had two candidates ahead of him in merit under RBA category, he could not be selected and offered appointment, was rejected by the writ court on the ground that as the respondent/writ petitioner was only candidate to agitate the matter and put forth his claim, he deserved to be selected under RBA category against third post under due to RBA category. The writ court accordingly allowed the writ petition, set aside selection of respondent No.5 and commanded the respondent-Board to declare the respondent/writ petitioner selected and recommend him for appointment to the indenting department. 6. The writ court judgement dated 3.12.2009 is questioned in present Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds, the appellant resisted the writ petition. 7. We have gone through the judgment of learned Single Judge as also the writ record. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The appellant's case that as the respondent/writ petitioner failed to attach diploma mark sheet with his application, he disentitled himself from consideration does not sound convincing. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent/writ petitioner entered the marks secured by him in his vocational training course undergone at ITI Ramban, in the application form. 8. The appellant's case that as the respondent/writ petitioner failed to attach diploma mark sheet with his application, he disentitled himself from consideration does not sound convincing. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent/writ petitioner entered the marks secured by him in his vocational training course undergone at ITI Ramban, in the application form. In the said backgrounds once the appellant-Board allowed him to participate in the selection process, called him for interview and awarded 12.33 out of 20 points earmarked for interview, the appellant-Board could not deny consideration on the ground of his failure to attach the said mark sheet in his application form. There is no reason to depart from the view taken by learned Single Judge in this regard. 9. Mr. S. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant-Board fairly concedes that 3 out of 12 advertised posts were meant for reserved backward area candidates and the respondent/writ petitioners' grievance in this regard was justified. However, learned counsel insists that 2 non selected candidates under RBA category had higher merit than the respondent/writ petitioner and he could not claim selection and appointment against the post of Technical Assistant'. It is argued that in view of merit position of the respondent/writ petitioner, he was not entitled to writ of mandamus, commanding appellant-Board to select him as technical assistant and recommend him for appointment. 10. There is merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The right course in such a case was to ask the appellant-Board to notify availability of post to the candidates having higher merit than the respondent/writ petitioner and further direct the appellant-Board to select the most meritorious candidate under RBA category in the event, he laid claim to the post, and in case neither of the two candidates having higher merit laid claim to the aforesaid post, to select the respondent/writ petitioner against the post and recommended him for appointment. 11. So viewed, the appeal is partly allowed and the writ court judgment dated 3rd of December, 2009 is modified as under: 12. The writ court judgement to the extent it set aside appointment of respondent No.5-Balram Singh Jamwal, does not call for interference. 11. So viewed, the appeal is partly allowed and the writ court judgment dated 3rd of December, 2009 is modified as under: 12. The writ court judgement to the extent it set aside appointment of respondent No.5-Balram Singh Jamwal, does not call for interference. The appellant-Board is directed to notify availability of post of technical assistant to the two candidates having higher merit than of the respondent/writ petitioner and in case they or one of them lay/lays claim to the post to select one having highest merit. However in case neither of the two candidates approaches the appellant-Board within a reasonable time set out in the notice, the appellant-Board shall select the respondent/writ petitioner against the post and recommend him for appointment to the concerned department. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.