JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. J&K State Services Selection Board ("the Board" for short), vide advertisement Notices No. 03 of 2012, dated 28th December 2012; No. 03 of 2013, dated 18th February 2013 and No. 11 of 2013, dated 24th December 2013, invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up 633 (115+100+458) posts of Junior Engineers in Public Health Engineering, Irrigation & Flood Control, and Public Works Departments. Appellants and respondents 4 to 61 were amongst the candidates, who responded to advertisement notices. The Board, after conducting written test and viva voce of aspirants for advertised posts, finalized selection process and recommended 164 candidates for appointment against advertised posts. Recommendation was acted upon and vide Government Order No. 62-PW(Hyd) of 2015, dated 25th February 2015, recommended candidates appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) State Cadre, in pay band of 9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. Respondents 4 to 20 did not find place in Select List and therefore, were not appointed by the State Government. 2. Aggrieved with their non-selection, respondents 4 to 20 filed writ petition, being SWP No. 345/2015. They, on strength of averments made in petition, sought following relief: "(a) A writ of mandamus/Certiorari, quashing criteria adopted by the respondent Board for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as notified vide Notice dated 10.05.2014; (b) A writ if mandamus, commanding respondent Board to prepare a fresh select list of the candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) without awarding 05 points to Degree holders and subjecting all the candidates to the common standard of 100 points." 3. Respondents/writ petitioners' case before Writ Court was that selection criteria notified by the Board for making selection against advertised posts was not in tune with - J&K Engineering (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1997. The case set up was that as in view of eligibility criteria prescribed under Rules, candidates with Three Years' Diploma in Engineering as well as candidates with Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, were eligible for advertised posts, it was not open to the Board to give weightage of 05 points to the candidates with Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. It was insisted that candidates with Three Years Diploma in Engineering and candidates with B.E. Degree were to be treated on a par and selection made on the basis of their performance in written test and viva voce. It was insisted that candidates with Three Years Diploma in Engineering and candidates with B.E. Degree were to be treated on a par and selection made on the basis of their performance in written test and viva voce. Extra weightage given to a candidate with Master's Degree in Technology was not questioned as it was a qualification higher to the eligibility qualification prescribed under J&K Engineering (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1997. 4. Writ petition was opposed on the ground that selection criteria was tailored as per Recruitment Rules and did not offend their mandate. Respondents insisted that Bachelor's Degree in Engineering was indisputably a higher degree as compared to Three Years' Diploma in Engineering and therefore, a candidate with B.E. Degree deserved to be given extra weightage as compared to candidate with Three Years' Diploma in Engineering. It was pleaded that only because both Three Years' Diploma and B.E. Degree are eligibility qualification in terms of Recruitment Rules, is not to deprive a candidate with B.E. Degree of the weightage, his degree would otherwise earn. The writ petition was also opposed on the ground that once respondents/writ petitioners participated in sleeting process, being fully aware of selection criteria, they are taken to have accepted selection criteria and volunteered to have their claimed considered on touchstone of such criteria notified by the Board. Respondents/writ petitioners, it was insisted, were not to be permitted after their participation in selection process to turnaround and question selection criteria or its outcome. 5. Writ court took the view that B.E. as also Three Years' Diploma in Engineering are to be treated at par as basic qualification for advertised posts and that higher education in terms of Rule 14, J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, (for brevity "the Decentralization Rules") would, in the present context, be M.E. Degree or qualification higher to said degree. Writ court, while holding so, referred to law laid down in Maroof Ahmad & Ors. v. State & Ors. ( 2012 (2) JKJ 358 [HC]); Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar & Ors. (2007 (VIII) SCC 100) and Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. Narinder Verma & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 467 ). Writ Court, making an extensive reference to law laid down in Sanjay Kumar (supra) held the Boardlo have erroneously allowed 05 points weightage to candidates with B.E. Degree. 6. v. S. Vinod Kumar & Ors. (2007 (VIII) SCC 100) and Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. Narinder Verma & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 467 ). Writ Court, making an extensive reference to law laid down in Sanjay Kumar (supra) held the Boardlo have erroneously allowed 05 points weightage to candidates with B.E. Degree. 6. Writ Court repelled the argument that respondents/writ petitioners were not to be allowed to question selection criteria after participating in selection process, holding that once selection criteria was found not to be in tune with Recruitment Rules, it would be open to question weightage given to B.E. Degree even after respondents/writ petitioners participated in selection process. The case was held to fall within exception referred to by Apex Court in Union of India v. Vinod Kumar & Ors. (2007 (VIII) SCC 100). Learned Single Judge while disposing of writ petition, directed respondent Board to reframe selection process after awarding 05 points across the board to candidates with Three Years' Diploma Course in Engineering as well as candidates with B.E. Degree. 7. Writ Court judgement dated 28th May 2015 is questioned in Letters Patent Appeal on hand on the ground that Learned Single Judge, by directing respondent board to award 05 points across the board, has, in effect, directed unequals be treated as equals. Such recourse, according to appellants would be in conflict with mandate of Article 14 and 16, Constitution of India. It is pleaded that selection criteria having been framed in strict accordance with mandate of Rule 14 of the Decentralization Rules, was not open to challenge. Respondents/writ petitioners, according to appellants, ought to have questioned Rule 14, i.e. foundation of impugned eligibility criteria. It is reiterated that B.E. Degree being superior to Three Year Diploma Course, the Board cannot be faulted for giving extra weightage to B.E. Degree and decision of the Board to give weightage to B.E. Degree is not to be faulted on any ground urged in writ petition.. 8. We have gone through memo of appeal, Writ Court judgement and record available on file. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 9. There can be no quarrel on competence and jurisdiction of Board to grant weightage for higher qualification in the discipline concerned to the extent it may be deemed appropriate. Such a power is to be located in Rule 14 of Decentralization Rules. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 9. There can be no quarrel on competence and jurisdiction of Board to grant weightage for higher qualification in the discipline concerned to the extent it may be deemed appropriate. Such a power is to be located in Rule 14 of Decentralization Rules. It would be appropriate to reproduce Rule for ready reference: "Procedure for preparation of select lists by the Board (1) The respective Selection Committee of the Board shall ordinarily restrict the number of applicants for oral and/or written test, as the case may be, to at least five times the number of vacancies on the basis of academic merit in the qualifying examination converted into points on pro rata basis out of the total points allocated for the basic eligibility/qualification and grant of weightage for the higher qualification in the discipline concerned to be allowed in the manner and to extent as the Board may deem appropriate for according due consideration to the merit and proficiency in higher qualification: Provided that the committee may, for reasons to be recorded, in writing, conduct a written test for short listing the candidates for admission to the oral test and for purpose of selection of candidates. (2) The Board shall prescribe such proforma, as are required for reference of vacancies by, and for communicating the select lists, to the requisitioning authorities from time to time. (3) The respective Selection Committees, while making selections and allocating candidates to various cadres, shall take into account the reservations made from time to time for various categories subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 13. (4) The select list so finalized by the respective Committees shall be equal to the number of vacancies for which requisition was made and recommend it to the requisitioning authority with prior approval of the Board. (5) The select list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date the select list is sent to the requisitioning authority. (6) The appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded, may not accept the select list received from the board and return the same to the Board for reconsideration by the respective Selection Committees: Provided that no such action shall be taken by the appointing authority without prior approval in writing of the Administrative Department. (6) The appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded, may not accept the select list received from the board and return the same to the Board for reconsideration by the respective Selection Committees: Provided that no such action shall be taken by the appointing authority without prior approval in writing of the Administrative Department. (7) The concerned Selection Committees of the Board shall also draw up a waiting list of 25% of the total number of selected candidates and forward the same, through the Board, to the requisitioning authority for consideration against dropout vacancies. The waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date the original select list is sent to the requisitioning authority. The Selection Committee shall not maintain or recommend any select or waiting list for any future vacancy or any vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee after appointment. (8) The appointing authority shall restrict the appointments to the extent of referred vacancies only and any violation thereof shall subject the officer concerned to disciplinary proceedings and any appointment in excess of the referred vacancies shall not confer any right on such appointee to hold such post." 10. Decentralization Rules have been prescribed in exercise of powers under Section 15, J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010. The Act is intended to provide for equitable opportunities of employment in Civil Services in the State keeping in view its complex socio-economical and geographical/topographical/linguistic/security concerns and matters connected thereto. The Act supplies to all Gazetted and Non-Gazetted posts borne on the establishment of any department or service of the Government, except the posts for which any special procedure is laid down under enactment of the State Legislature and/or may be excluded from the operation of the Act by notification issued by Government in that behalf from time to time. The Act provides for mechanism to ensure appointment and promotion to District Cadre, Divisional Cadre, and State Cadre posts, in fair, transparent and objective manner. One of the objects of the Act is to ensure that due credit is given to merit to achieve overall object of effective governance. Rule 14 is one of components of overall mechanism to achieve purpose and object of the Act. 11. One of the objects of the Act is to ensure that due credit is given to merit to achieve overall object of effective governance. Rule 14 is one of components of overall mechanism to achieve purpose and object of the Act. 11. However, to make Rule 14 applicable to the extent it provides for weightage for higher qualification in discipline concerned, it is of utmost importance to find out whether qualification to which weightage is granted, is "higher qualification", so as to earn such weightage. The question whether a qualification can be treated as higher qualification is not to be considered in isolation. Whether a particular qualification is higher qualification in the discipline concerned is to be considered in the context of eligibility criteria prescribed under Recruitment Rules. In case eligibility criteria prescribed under Rules treats two qualifications at par, it would not be open to the Board to press into service Rule 14 of Decentralization Rules and grant extra weightage to either of such qualifications. 12. Before embarking an exercise to find out whether B.E. Degree is to be treated as higher qualification within meaning of Rule 14 of Decentralization Rules 2010 and therefore, deserve weightage, it is necessary to have a look at eligibility criteria prescribed under Recruitment Rules. 13. Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997, admittedly, are applicable to Junior Engineers (Civil) Cadre i.e. advertised posts. Scheduled-I to Recruitment Rules prescribes strength of various cadres of engineering subordinate service. Schedule II-A, inter alia, prescribes eligibility criteria i.e. qualification, experience etcetera, for posts in a cadre. Schedule-II 'A' is relevant to present controversy and needs to be noticed: Class Category Designation of the post Grade Qualification for direct recruitment Method of Recruitment IIIA A Junior Engineer Grade-II Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical (i) 1760-3200 (ii) 1000-2300 3 years Diploma in Civil/ Electrical & Mech. Engineering from Government recognized Institute/ Indian University Degree in Civil/ Mech./ Electrical Engineering or AMIE Section (A&B) India. Note :- Indian University Degree/ 3 Years Diploma from government recognized Institute in Aeronautical/ Automobile Production Engineering shall be considered as equivalent to Degree/Diploma in Mech. Engg. Respectively. (i) 90% by direct recruitment. (ii) 10% by promotion through Department Promotion Committee from Draftsman/ Work Supervisor and shift Attendant/ Field Workers/ Field Supervisors having obtained Degree/ AMIE Section (A & B). Note :- Indian University Degree/ 3 Years Diploma from government recognized Institute in Aeronautical/ Automobile Production Engineering shall be considered as equivalent to Degree/Diploma in Mech. Engg. Respectively. (i) 90% by direct recruitment. (ii) 10% by promotion through Department Promotion Committee from Draftsman/ Work Supervisor and shift Attendant/ Field Workers/ Field Supervisors having obtained Degree/ AMIE Section (A & B). 3 Years Diploma from Indian University/ Government recognized Institute in Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical Engineering Discipline as applicable in the ratio of 4:4:2 respectively with at least five years continuous/ experience service in their respective categories. In case the required number of eligible persons are not available then the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment. 14. The Recruitment Rules, therefore, prescribe B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering, AMIE Section (A&B) as also Three Years Diploma in Engineering from recognised Institute, as qualification for post of Junior Engineer (Civil). Rule Makers, in the circumstances, have treated B.E. Degree and Three Years Diploma in Engineering at par by making candidates with either of Degrees eligible for post of Junior Engineer. The Board, therefore, was not free to give weightage to either of eligibility qualifications as such qualification would not be higher qualification in the context of selection process for advertised posts. 15. True that B.E. Degree is higher as compared to Three Years Diploma in Engineering, when considered in isolation, divorce from context. As rule makers have treated both B.E. Degree and Three Years Diploma at par for purposes of selection and appointment to posts of Junior Engineer, no weightage would be permissible to B.E. Degree. 16. The Writ Court judgement, in the above background does not treat unequals, as equals as projected by learned counsel for appellants. Any other interpretation would lead to irrational results. To illustrate, if weightage is permitted to be given to one of eligibility qualifications, other source of recruitment may get excluded as one of sources gets an edge over other source, by having extra 05 points, irrespective of performance in written test and viva voce. Let us assume for a while that 10 posts of Junior Engineers are proposed to be filled up and 20 candidates with B.E. Degree respond to advertisement notice and like numbers with Three Years Diploma in Engineering aspires for such posts. Let us assume for a while that 10 posts of Junior Engineers are proposed to be filled up and 20 candidates with B.E. Degree respond to advertisement notice and like numbers with Three Years Diploma in Engineering aspires for such posts. Candidates with B.E. Degree shall have far better opportunity to grab all 10 posts because of 05 points weightage, chasing out candidates with Three Years Diploma in Engineering from Select List. Had rule makers excluded B.E. Degree from eligibility criteria, the Board would have been within its powers to grant weightage to the Degree. The Board in its wisdom in the selection criteria notified, provided for weightage of 02 points for M. Tech Degree. The Board decision to the said extent cannot be questioned. But same cannot be true about B.E. Degree. 17. There is no scope for any disagreement with learned counsel for appellants that B.E. Degree is superior to Three Year Diploma and that a candidate with B.E. Degree deserves better treatment. Such treatment is provided for in Recruitment Rules inasmuch as, once a candidate with B.E. Degree is selected and appointed as Junior Engineer, he has better promotional avenues and would be eligible for Junior Engineer Grade-I, after putting in five years service. A candidate with Three Years Diploma in Engineering, after getting selected and appointed as Junior Engineer, shall have to wait for 10 years to be promoted as Junior Engineer Grade-I. 18. Writ Court judgement, therefore, cannot be faulted on any of grounds urged in the memo of appeal. Judgement is well reasoned and based on objective appraisal of the material on record of applicable case law. 19. One of options to Writ Court was to direct respondent Board to reframe Select List after subtracting 05 points from overall merit of candidates with B.E. Degree awarded to them on the basis of weightage. However, Writ Court instead has asked respondent Board to award 05 points across the board i.e. to B.E. Degree Holders as well as Three Years Diploma Holders. The results either way would be same. Candidates with B.E. Degree in either case are not to get weightage of 05 points provided in selection criteria notified by the Board. In the circumstances and for reasons discussed, we do not find any reason to take a view different from one taken by learned Single Judge. The results either way would be same. Candidates with B.E. Degree in either case are not to get weightage of 05 points provided in selection criteria notified by the Board. In the circumstances and for reasons discussed, we do not find any reason to take a view different from one taken by learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal does not have merit and is, therefore, dismissed.