Per Mansoor, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, for short LPAs, raise a common issue for adjudication, therefore, are taken up for disposal together. Before dwelling on the merits of the case, let us advert a little on the events leading to the institution of instant appeals. 2. Two writ petitions being SWP Nos. 842/2000 and 666/2000 had been filed questioning certain selections made by respondents 1 and 2 against the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Pediatrics. 3. The controversy, as per the pleadings, is that an advertisement Notice no. 22-PSC of 1998 dated 12th October, 1998, was responded to by all the aspiring candidates including the petitioners. The said advertisement had sought candidatures for the selection/ appointment of two posts of Lecturers in the discipline of Pediatrics one each for general and reserved category. 4. Petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process for being ineligible. 5. The selection process was undertaken and it culminated into selection of respondent no. 3, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Parray, from amongst the general category candidates and because of the non-availability of a reserved category candidate the post meant for the said category remained unfilled. However, a wait list of three more candidates was prepared by the respondents who too, subsequently, were appointed against the post of Lecturers. 6. The said action of the respondents 1 and 2 was challenged on the ground that there were only two vacancies which had been put to advertisement and for which the wait list had been prepared. The adjustment of three more candidates clandestinely made by the respondents from the wait list prepared for making a selection of only two posts speaks of ulterior motives on the part of respondents and thereby depriving the petitioners to stand a chance of competing for the post as by the time the wait list was made operational the petitioners had attained the eligibility, therefore, respondents were required under law to afford them an opportunity of competing for the post by re-advertising the posts. 7. Upon being considered, the writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated 18th March, 2002. 8. Against the said judgment the petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal, and the learned Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 25th August, 2003, disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Writ Court and set aside its judgment. 9. 8. Against the said judgment the petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal, and the learned Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 25th August, 2003, disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Writ Court and set aside its judgment. 9. Feeling aggrieved Respondents preferred Special Leave Petitions, for short SLPs, before the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country. Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the appeals remitted the case to this court for its disposal afresh. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court herein, thus: "Additionally we find that though the State was asked to produce the files, it appears that for reasons beyond its control the files containing the alleged policy decision could not be produced for perusal of the Bench hearing the appeals. In the aforesaid background, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. Parties shall be permitted to file further affidavits and documents in support of their respective stand. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the State, files shall be produced as and when required by the Bench hearing the appeal. The existing position pursuant to interim order of this court shall continue till disposal of the matter afresh by the High Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits, which shall be considered by the High Court uninfluenced by any observation made by it earlier in the impugned judgment." 10. This is how the appeals are being adjudicated upon. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 12. Petitioners have come to the court and sought the reliefs prayed for in the appeal only on the ground that State respondents were not justified in making selection of the wait list candidates against the posts which were not advertised previously when the wait list came to be prepared. 13. The stand of the respondents, to meet the contention of the petitioners is that, the selection of wait list candidates was made against the anticipated vacancies in pursuance to a policy decision. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the supplementary affidavit filed by the State Respondents in compliance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, herein, thus: "2. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the supplementary affidavit filed by the State Respondents in compliance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, herein, thus: "2. That while disposing of the SLPs filed by the State Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given prima-facie finding on certain facts, which include the fact that there were existing vacancies or likely vacancies as also the fact that the J&K Public Service Commission has prepared the select list of only two persons instead of six persons, which was made on 25th October, 1999 after the interviews were conducted on 14th September, 1999 of which details were required to be given by the J&K Public Service Commission. This is important in view of the fact that as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 3 of the judgment, the four additional vacancies (in addition to two advertised) became available on 23rd October, 1999 when the J&K Public Service Commission accorded approval to the promotion of four Lecturers as Assistant Professors. 4. That two vacancies of Lecturers in the department of pediatrics of Medical Education Department were referred to the J&K Public Service Commission and J&K Public Service Commission advertised the said posts vide advertisement notice on 12.10.1998. Thereafter interview was held the said posts. Subsequent on 23.10.1998, the J&K Public Service Commission accorded approval to the promotion of four Lecturers from the department of Pediatrics as Assistant Professor who were earlier granted adhoc promotion on 18.05.1998 and were already working as Assistant Professor even at the time when interview were taken, clear vacancies have gone to six (two clear vacancies advertised and four anticipated/ likely vacancies which were unfilled because of adhoc promotion given to four Lecturers but whose clear availability was subject to the approval of adhoc promotion of four lecturers to the posts of Assistant Professors which was done on 23.10.1998. It is also important to note that those four likely vacancies though were in the knowledge of the Government but could not be advertised on 12.03.1998 as those vacancies were likely to become available on confirmation of adhoc promotion of four Lecturers by the J&K Public Service Commission with whom the papers were lying." 14. It is also important to note that those four likely vacancies though were in the knowledge of the Government but could not be advertised on 12.03.1998 as those vacancies were likely to become available on confirmation of adhoc promotion of four Lecturers by the J&K Public Service Commission with whom the papers were lying." 14. The reproduced text, in explicit terms, conveys as to how properly the affairs have been dealt with and it throws light on every aspect leaving no scope for confusions. 15. The record produced by Mrs. Goswami, learned Deputy Advocate General, in support of their stand indicates the details about the vacant positions in different departments including the department of Pediatrics. Reference in this connection is made to page 8 to 24 from the file "Threat of De-recognition." It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the record produced before the court, thus: "1. There is shortage of teaching staff as per Annexure I. This shortage is primarily due to disturbed and abnormal conditions prevailing in the valley for the last seven years, which has made recruitment of staff absolute by impossible, more over it is due to migration of a large number of faculty members of a particular community outside the valley. They are absent since 1989/90 but are being shown as "migrant" and are drawing their salary. Their vacancies cannot be filled up because they are still on the roll and cannot be treated as a clear vacancy." 16. We have also come across a letter dated 2nd February, 1998, which is a part of the record so produced, addressed by State respondents to the Secretary to Govt. Of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. It is apt to reproduce the first paragraph of the said letter herein, thus: "Immediately after the inspection of Medical College, Srinagar by the inspectors of Medical Council of India in April, 1996 steps were initiated by the State Government to fill up the clear vacancies of Faculty Members of the College and consequently after fulfilling all the requirements required under rules, the vacant posts of Professor, Ophthalmology, Associate Professors in Ophthalmology and Physiology and Assistant Professors in Psychiatry and Anatomy have been filled up vide Govt. Order No: 317-HME of 1997 dated 25.3.1997 (copy enclosed). Order No: 317-HME of 1997 dated 25.3.1997 (copy enclosed). The main problem, however, was to fill up the vacant positions that had become available in the College due to the migration of a particular community from the Valley. The State Cabinet recently authorized the Department to grant officiating promotions against such vacancies. The Department has initiated action to fill up the migrant vacancies and the process is expected to be completed soon. With this the faculty position in Govt. Medical College is expected to improve to a large extent and it is expected to be as per the MCI norms." 17. The record produced by the State respondents makes it abundantly clear as to how the orders for adjustment of private respondents have been issued and the vacancy position is very much reflected. 18. In the circumstances, the only issue that needs determination from this court is as to whether there was actually some policy decision that is pleaded to have been followed while making selection from amongst the wait list candidates? 19. This court on couple of occasions while hearing the appeals desired to go through the record so that the policy decision in question is perused and the veracity of the respondents' stand is examined. 20. The record pertaining to the selection in question, as stated hereinbefore, has been produced by Ms. Goswami, learned State Counsel and has been examined. The perusal of the record significantly reveals as to what necessitated the respondents for making the policy decision and what were the factors for making such policy decision. In comparison, it appears that a positive multifaceted object has been sought to be achieved by making the selection/ appointment of private respondents. 21. The Apex Court in case titled Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, reported as (2010) 2 SCC Page 637 has held that vacancies in excess of the advertised posts can be filled only in emergent situation and on policy decision. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 7 of the judgment herein, thus: "7. 21. The Apex Court in case titled Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, reported as (2010) 2 SCC Page 637 has held that vacancies in excess of the advertised posts can be filled only in emergent situation and on policy decision. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 7 of the judgment herein, thus: "7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. (Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat, State of Bihar v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986, Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ashok Kumar v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board)." 22. In another case titled Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported as (1997) 8 SCC 488 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the same principle. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and others reported as (1999) 3 SCC 696 23. It would be apt to record herein that some of the private respondents have already reached the age of superannuation and all of them have been promoted to different ranks and are holding different positions at this stage. 24. It is apt to record herein that the petitioners, have failed to make the grade even in subsequent selection processes. 25. In the circumstances, it will not be equitable, just and proper to dislodge the respondents at this stage. 24. It is apt to record herein that the petitioners, have failed to make the grade even in subsequent selection processes. 25. In the circumstances, it will not be equitable, just and proper to dislodge the respondents at this stage. Our view is substantiated by Apex Court judgment titled Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors & connected matters reported as (1996) 4 SCC 319 . It would be apt to reproduce paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment herein, thus: "25. From the above discussion of the case law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies If the requisition and advertisement are for certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the Court may not, while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 26. In the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts the Board made appointments on 138 posts. The selection process was started for 62 clear vacancies and at that time anticipated vacancies were not taken into account. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement published on 2.11.1991 and the selection process which followed thereafter. But as the Board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the appointments made on posts in excess of 62. But as the Board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the appointments made on posts in excess of 62. However, the appointments which were made against future vacancies - in this case on posts which were newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection process had started 13 posts had become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. The vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of retirement could have been reasonably anticipated by the Board. The Board through oversight had not taken them into consideration while a requisition was made for filling up 62 posts. Even with respect to the appointments made against vacancies which arose because of deaths, a lenient view can be taken and on consideration of expediency and equity they need not be quashed. Therefore, in view of the special facts and circumstances of this case we do not think it proper to invalidate the appointments made on those 25 additional posts. But the appointments made by the Board on posts beyond 87 are held invalid. Though the High Court was right in the view It has taken. We modify its order to the aforesaid extent. These appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs." 26. The Division Bench of this Court in case titled Riyaz Ahmad Gada v. State of J&K & Ors reported as JKJ (2009) (Supp) Vol. 24, 600, has laid down the same principle and the verdict has subsequently been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) No. 33556 of 2009 vide order dated 3rd February, 2012. 27. Having regard to the above narration, impugned judgment is held to be quite reasoned and needs no interference. Upholding the view of the learned writ court, we dismiss the appeals as meritless. 28. Registry to place copy of this judgment on both the LPAs. 29. Bench Secretary to hand over the record to Mrs. Goswami.