JUDGMENT : 1. This batch of writ petitions is taken up together for final disposal as the issues involved are identical in all the writ petitions. 2. Before dealing with the pleadings and arguments of learned counsel on either side, it is deemed appropriate to give brief narration of the facts of the cases. 3. Advertisement Notification No. 01/2002 dated 26th April, 2002 was issued by the respondent-Selection Board, whereunder 52 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the Advertisement Notification was graduation. 4. The selection process could not be concluded. In the meanwhile, one more Advertisement Notification No. 09/2005 dated 14th December, 2005 was issued, whereunder 39 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. The process of selection initiated in pursuance to the Advertisement Notification No. 09/2005 dated 14th December, 2005 also remained inconclusive and in the meanwhile, respondent-Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 04/2008 dated 26th May, 2008, whereunder 20 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. 5. The posts, which were notified in terms of Notification dated 26th April, 2002, were governed by rules notified vide SRO 471 dated 2nd September, 1973, whereas the posts notified in terms of Notification dated 14th December, 2005 and Notification dated 26th May, 2008 were governed by schedule substituted vide SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003. 6. The petitioners responded to Notification Nos. 01/2002, 09/2005, and 04/2008, whereas the selected/appointed respondents responded to the Notification No’s 09/2005 and 04/2008. 7. The selection process culminated in making recommendations in favour of the selected candidates which include the private respondents as well. The selected candidates including private respondents were appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars in pursuance to the recommendations made by respondent-Selection Board. 8. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the selection and appointment of private respondents filed these writ petitions and in almost all the writ petitions the principle ground of challenge to the selection/appointment of private respondent is that they were not eligible in terms of the rules of 1973, of which the schedule was substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003, inasmuch as, the private respondents had not passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. 9. In all these writ petitions, the Court has directed for reserving the 23 posts of Naib Tehsildars. 10. 9. In all these writ petitions, the Court has directed for reserving the 23 posts of Naib Tehsildars. 10. On notice issued, the State-respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that the appointments of the private respondents were made in relaxation of the rules. It is admitted by the State-respondents that for being eligible for being selected/appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildar, the candidate was required to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. 11. Mr. B.A.Bashir, learned senior counsel, argued at great length in support of the claim of his clients and submitted that his clients responded to Notification 09/2005 dated 14th December, 2005 and Notification No. 04/2008 dated 26th May, 2008. Learned counsel further submitted that the post of Naib Tehsildar in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973 (for short “Rules of 1973”), of which schedule was substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003, would require a candidate to be a graduate and having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. Learned counsel submitted that the official respondents have admitted that the private respondents were not eligible in terms of rules for being selected and appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildar. 12. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the documents placed on record along with CMP. No. 1253/2015. The document which has been obtained by filing application under Right to Information Act refers to notes prepared by the Authorities at various levels in the Revenue Department. The notes also refer to the opinion given by the learned Advocate General and the Law Department. 13. Learned counsel was at pains to read the rules in extenso to substantiate his argument and further submitted that even the Government has accepted that private respondents were ineligible, for being appointed as Naib-Tehsildars. The notes also refer to the opinion given by the learned Advocate General and the Law Department. 13. Learned counsel was at pains to read the rules in extenso to substantiate his argument and further submitted that even the Government has accepted that private respondents were ineligible, for being appointed as Naib-Tehsildars. Learned counsel submitted that since the Authorities in the Government Department at various levels have undertaken an exercise and in principle have accepted the claim of the petitioners, in these circumstances either the selection/appointment of private respondents shall be quashed and direction issued for appointment of the petitioners on the said posts or in alternative if the Court does not intend to quash the appointments, then the petitioners shall be directed to be appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars which have been reserved by the Court and which as per the showing of the respondents themselves are available with them. Learned counsel referred to Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (1) SCC 768 and placed whole hog reliance on para 64 thereof. 14. Learned counsel appearing in other writ petitions submitted that they adopt the arguments of Mr. B.A.Bashir. 15. Mr. I.Sofi, appearing in some of the petitions submitted that some questions were wrongly framed in question paper and wrong answers were provided. Learned counsel also submitted that in the examination conducted in terms of Revenue Service (Executive) Departmental Examination Rules, 2003, no paper of Urdu of Matriculation Standard was set up by the Public Service Commission and in the question paper only General Knowledge questions were prescribed. 16. Mr. N.H.Shah, learned AAG, submitted that the stand has been taken by the official respondents in the reply affidavit that relaxation of recruitment rules was sought in respect of private respondents from the competent Authority which was granted by the competent Authority as one time exception. Learned counsel submitted that the very fact that relaxation of recruitment rules in respect of private respondents has been granted by the competent Authority would show that the private respondents were not eligible in terms of rules for being selected/appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildars. 17. Mr. Learned counsel submitted that the very fact that relaxation of recruitment rules in respect of private respondents has been granted by the competent Authority would show that the private respondents were not eligible in terms of rules for being selected/appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildars. 17. Mr. T.H.Khawja, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for Service Selection Board, made all out efforts to justify the selection process made by the respondent-Selection Board, by submitting that in the Advertisement Notices, the eligibility qualification was mentioned as graduation and the private respondents on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice were eligible candidates. Learned counsel further submitted that recommendations made in favour of the private respondents for their appointment on the posts of Naib Tehsildars has been made in view of the better merit they secured in the selection process. 18. Mr. S.R.Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for some of the private respondents, submitted that the respondent-Selection Board issued Advertisement Notice, in which eligibility qualification was prescribed as graduation. Learned counsel submitted that his clients on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notices were eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed as Naib Tehsildars. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of their performance in the selection process they were recommended for being appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildars. Learned counsel submitted that the Government accepted the recommendations of the respondent-Selection Board and appointed his clients on the posts of Naib Tehsildars. Learned counsel further submitted that the process initiated by some of the Authorities in the Revenue Department for seeking relaxation in the eligibility qualification of private respondents and ultimate grant of relaxation is inconsequential in the facts of this case, inasmuch as, his clients were eligible on the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice and there was no requirement for grant of any relaxation in qualification. Learned counsel also referred to the schedule which was substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 appended to the Rules of 1973 and submitted that in respect of post of Naib Tehsildars, the eligibility qualification has been shown to be graduation and in respect of other posts mentioned in Class-1 category (Executive) of the schedule appended to Rules of 1973, the requirement of having passed Urdu as one of the subjects is an eligibility qualification for those posts, and same is not prescribed for the post of Naib Tehsildar. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners after having participated in the selection process are estoped from challenging the selection process. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 19. Learned counsel in the alternative submitted that if the Court comes to a conclusion that his clients were ineligible, even then their appointments cannot be disturbed, they having qualified Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations), Rules 2005, (for short “Rules of 2005”), in which one subject was Urdu of the Matriculation Standard and which his clients successfully qualified in first attempt. Learned counsel submitted that respondents can be directed to accommodate the petitioners against the posts reserved by the Court in these writ petitions. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the Judgments reported in 2005 JKJ (SC) Vol II page 4, 2006 SCC (6) page 467 and AIR 1995 SC 1089. 20. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the schedule appended to Rules of 1973 and substituted vide SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 is taken note of:- SCHEDULE The Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973 Class Category Grade Designation of the posts Qualification Method of recruitment 1[Technical] IExecutive6500-105001. Naib Tehsildar. 2. Instructor (Naib-Tehsildar) 3. Asstt. Revenue Attorney. 4. Reader to Financial Commissioner. 5. Reader to Divisional Commissioner. 6. P.A. to Deputy Commr.Graduation in case of Naib-Tehsildars Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects.(i) 50% by direct recruitment by a competitive test. (ii) 45% by promotion from Class II amongst the persons having not less than 5 years service in the said class and having qualified the prescribed departmental examination in the order of seniority including those having worked in settlement. (ii) 45% by promotion from Class II amongst the persons having not less than 5 years service in the said class and having qualified the prescribed departmental examination in the order of seniority including those having worked in settlement. (iii) 5% by promotion from remaining Girdawars promoted in Class II above on the basis of seniority amongst those who have worked satisfactorily in survey teams of settlement for at least 5 years subject to qualifying the departmental examination. IITechinical1[5000-80001. Saddar Qanango 2. Girdawars, Office Qanungos and naib-Sadar Qangungo 3. Statistical Girdawars. 4. Consolidators. (Girdawars. 5. Instructor Girdawars of Revene Training Schools. 6. Peshi Qanunugo and Reader in Consolidation Department. By Promotion in accordance with the following ratio having due reagard to seniority in each category, namely: (i) 25% from Patwaries who are graduates and above. (ii) 5% from Patwaries of survey teams who have worked satisfactorily for five years in the settlement. (iii) 70% from such as are not covered under (i) & (ii) above] IIITechnical1[3050-45001. patwari and Office Patwari. 2. Consolidation patwari. 3. Draftsman of the Consolidation Department. 4. Tracers10+2 with knowledge of Urdu100% by direct recruitment from amongst those who have successfully completed the training in Revenue Training School or during settlement operation possessing adequate knowledge in writing Urdu.] 21. The eligibility conditions for filling up of posts are prescribed by statutory rules and in their absence by executive orders. In the cases on hand the eligibility qualification is prescribed by the statutory rules of 1973 and in the admitted fact position of this case the eligibility qualification prescribed by schedule substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 appended to Rules of 1973 occupy the field. The schedule refers to Class-I as posts of Naib Tehsildar and are categorized “Executive” with grade of Rs. 6500-10500. The qualification, in the column qualification, expression (Technical) is reflected which has been substituted by SRO 560 dated 24th December, 1985 and the prescribed qualification is substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 and reads as under:- “Graduation in case of Naib-Tehsildars. Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects.” 22. 6500-10500. The qualification, in the column qualification, expression (Technical) is reflected which has been substituted by SRO 560 dated 24th December, 1985 and the prescribed qualification is substituted by SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 and reads as under:- “Graduation in case of Naib-Tehsildars. Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects.” 22. In the column “method of recruitment”50% posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment by a competitive test, 45 % by promotion from Class-II, amongst the persons having not less than 5 years service in the said class and having qualified the prescribed departmental examination in the order of seniority including those having worked in settlement and 5% by promotion from remaining Girdawars promoted in Class-II above on the basis of seniority amongst those who have worked satisfactorily in survey teams of settlement for at least 5 years subject to qualifying the departmental examination. 23. The question which requires to be answered is whether for the post of Naib Tehsildar a candidate is required to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. 24. This issue would not require to be answered in view of the stand taken by the respondent-State that one of the eligibility qualifications for the post of Naib Tehsildar is that candidate must have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects and also for the reason that for appointing private respondents on the posts of Naib Tehsildars relaxation has been granted in eligibility qualification, but in view of the stand taken by Mr. S.R. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for some of the private respondents, the issue would require to be considered and answered. 25. The Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act 1996 (1939 A.D.) for short “Act of 1996” defines the class of revenue officers in Section 6 which falls under Chapter-II. Section 6 (e) refers to the Assistant Collector of the second class. Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act of 1996, besides referring to other classes of officers, refers to Naib Tehsildars as Assistant Collector of second class. 26. The Naib Tehsildar, in view of scheme of the Act of 1996 is the first grass root level officer in the Revenue Department. Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act of 1996, besides referring to other classes of officers, refers to Naib Tehsildars as Assistant Collector of second class. 26. The Naib Tehsildar, in view of scheme of the Act of 1996 is the first grass root level officer in the Revenue Department. The Naib Tehsildar in view of the Act of 1996 and standing orders 22 and 23-A has to pass orders on mutation, deal with the preparation of revenue record including that of Kharif and Girdawari records. The Girdawari and Jamabandi records are being prepared in Urdu language, which otherwise, is State language. The Naib Tehsildar in view of the job functions, thus, has to be a person who can read and write Urdu. It is for this reason that Rule Making Authority has prescribed one of the eligibility qualifications “having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects”. The schedule appended to Rules of 1973, as already stated, refers to Class-I category (Executive) with grade of Rs. 6500-10500. 6 posts have been shown in the column 4 of the schedule under the caption “designation” of posts. The method of recruitment does not single out the post of Naib Tehildar only, but has reference to all the 6 designated posts. The qualification, thus, has to be same for all the 6 designated posts as already stated they comprise one class and one category and are interchangeable. The Naib Tehsildar can be posted as PA to Deputy Commissioner and vice-versa. It cannot be, thus, said that Naib Tehsildar does not require to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subject, whereas the same eligibility condition is prescribed in the case of PA to Deputy Commissioner and other posts. At serial No. 2 in Column 4 of the schedule under the caption designation of posts “Designation of Posts appears Instructor (Naib Tehsildar). The contention of learned counsel for the private respondents in view of the aforesaid fact situation that for being appointed as Naib Tehsildar, a person must be graduate and need not to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects cannot be accepted. 27. A person who cannot read or write Urdu in view of the functions which are to be discharged by a Naib Tehsildar, cannot be appointed as Naib Tehsildar. 27. A person who cannot read or write Urdu in view of the functions which are to be discharged by a Naib Tehsildar, cannot be appointed as Naib Tehsildar. In the column of qualification of the schedule appended to Rules of 1973, the qualification prescribed, cannot be segregated in respect of post of Naib Tehsildar and that of Instructor as suggested by the learned counsel for private respondents because the Instructor itself is shown to be Naib Tehsildar. The Rule Making Authority has not drafted the rule about the prescribed qualification properly, but in order to give it correct meaning and to make it workable it has to be held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for the post of Naib Tehsildar is graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects in terms of the schedule appended to Rules of 1973. This is the stand taken by the official respondents also. 28. The schedule appended to Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment, 2009, prescribe minimum qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Naib Tehsildar, Assistant Revenue Attorney, Reader to Financial Commissioner/Divisional Commissioner, PA to (Naib Tehsildar) to Deputy Commissioner, instructor (Naib Tehsildar) as graduate with knowledge of Urdu. In the Rules of 2009 also all the 6 posts have been treated as one class for the purpose of prescribed minimum qualification for direct recruitment. This would also show that all the 6 posts which figure in the schedule appended to Rules of 1973, there has to be only one eligibility qualification i.e. graduation and having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. 29. As already stated in the column of method of recruitment no separate reference is made to the posts of Naib Tehsildars and other five posts. The method of recruitment is same for all the 6 designated posts, which also shows that for one class of post eligibility qualification, has to be only one. These 6 designated posts are interchangeable, thus, constitute one class in law, and the Rule Making Authority has treated it as such in the schedule appended to Rules of 1973. This class of posts has to be given uniform treatment in prescribing eligibility qualification, otherwise, rule will fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. The Government as also Recruiting Agency is duty bound to make selections/appointments to a particular post in accordance with the recruitment rules. This class of posts has to be given uniform treatment in prescribing eligibility qualification, otherwise, rule will fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. The Government as also Recruiting Agency is duty bound to make selections/appointments to a particular post in accordance with the recruitment rules. In the facts of this case, the Recruiting Agency has prescribed qualification in the Advertisement Notice which is unknown to recruitment rules. The selection process initiated on the basis of Advertisement Notice which has been conducted in breach of statutory recruitment rules stand vitiated in the eyes of law. The relaxation granted in respect of recruitment rules to enable the selected candidates for being appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars is not permissible in law. In the rules, no power is reserved to any Authority for relaxing the basic recruitment rules. Even otherwise, the basic recruitment rules of eligibility cannot be relaxed that too after conclusion of selection process. Granting of relaxation in recruitment rules at the end of selection process though not permissible in law, is otherwise, unsustainable in law, inasmuch as, those other persons who constitute a class with the private respondents and were ineligible were deprived of the opportunity to compete in the selection process. 31. The Selection Agency has clubbed ineligible candidates with eligible candidates. The eligible candidates on the basis of recruitment rules in the selection process constitute a class in themselves. This class of eligible candidates could not be clubbed with ineligible candidates. The clubbing of ineligible candidates in the selection process with eligible candidates has subjected them to invidious discrimination, thus, violating their rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, admittedly, have been clubbed with ineligible candidates and merit of eligible candidates has been adjudged along with ineligible candidates. The selection process itself is rendered illegal in this fact situation as well. 32. However, as submitted at bar by learned counsel for the private respondents that private respondents stand appointed in the year 2009 and have also qualified the test conducted by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations), Rules 2005, which had one paper in Urdu also, the question now arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions. 33. 33. The petitioners, in view of the discussion made in this Judgment, have been subjected to great injustice. This Court as guardian of the rights of the people is duty bound to remedy the wrong to which petitioners have been subjected to by the respondent-Selection Board. The Division Bench of this Court in case titled J&K BOPEE and Ors. v. Sunandani Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 J&K, 44 has observed as under:- “....The Constitutional Court is duty boundto uphold the merit of a meritorious candidate and is further duty bound to ensure that justice is meted out and wrong done is remedied. True, it is that justice is to be done in accordance with the law. The justice, however, in itself is a Supreme law and cannot become subservient to an interpretation of a law which may result in meeting out harsh injustice to a person...” 34. Yet another Division Bench of this Court in LPA. No. 09/2015 titled Owais Mehmood v. State and Ors. decided on 3rd July, 2015 has observed as under:- “...Justice is overawing, over imposing and overwhelming feature of life. Justice transcends all man made barriers. It denudes injustice of all its lethal effect. Justice essentially is an all pervasive legal force; its administration is guided by rules of nature, and is tempered with compassion..” 35. In the facts of this case there are two ways to provide relief to the petitioners. One mode is to quash the selection/appointment of private respondents and direct the official respondents to appoint the petitioner on these posts. The other mode is to maintain the selection/appointment of the private respondents and direct the official respondents to appoint the petitioners on the posts which stand reserved in terms of the Court Orders. 36. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgments referred to at bar by Mr. S.R.Hussain and even by Mr. B.A.Bashir, the second mode would be equitable. 37. For the above stated reasons this writ petition along with connected CMP(s) is disposed of in the following manner:- The official respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Naib Tehsildars against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the Court Orders in these writ petitions. 37. For the above stated reasons this writ petition along with connected CMP(s) is disposed of in the following manner:- The official respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Naib Tehsildars against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the Court Orders in these writ petitions. The appointment orders in this behalf be issued within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. In case of those of the petitioners who might have crossed the upper age limit for entering into Government services, it shall be deemed that relaxation is granted in the upper age limit. The petitioners in this fact situation shall be given all the service benefits including the seniority from the date the private respondents have been appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars. The petitioners, however, will not be entitled to any monitory benefit for the period between appointment of private respondents and till the date of their appointments. Besides this the petitioners in SWP. Nos. 1941/2009, 1820/2009 and 1709/2009 shall also be extended the benefit of Judgment dated 31st December, 2014 passed in SWP. No. 487/2009.