JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. The General Administration Department (GAD) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Government’) vide its No. GAD (Ser) Genl/277/2009 dated 13.04.2010 referred 189 vacancies to the J&K Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) for making selection for three services through a Combined Competitive Examination in accordance with the J&K Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (for short, the Rules of 2008) and the Reservation Rules. Service-wise and category-wise break up of these vacancies was given as under: I. Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service (for short the ‘Administrative Service’):- OM 19 RBA 06 SC 03 ST 03 Total 31 Posts II. J&K Police (Gazetted) Service (for short the ‘Police Service’):- OM 71 RBA 24 SC 10 ST 03 ALC 03 OSC 02 Total 122 posts III. J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service (for short the ‘Accounts Service’):- OM 21 RBA 24 SC 03 ST 03 ALC 01 OSC 01 Total 36 posts 2. The Commission set in motion the selection process by issuing Advertisement Notification No. PSC/EXM-10/43 dated 01.05.2010 calling applications for a Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination. 7621 candidates qualified for appearing in the main examination. The Commission then issued Notification No. PSC/EXM-10/89 dated 01.12.2010 calling applications for Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2010. 582 candidates qualified the Combined Competitive (Main) Examination for being called for the interview. The Commission conducted the interview and declared result of all the candidates vide Notification No. PSC/Ex-11/109 dated 02.09.2011 disclosing therein the aggregate marks obtained by them. By the same Notification, the Commission asked 189 candidates in order of merit equivalent to the number of vacancies advertised to report for their medical examination. 3. Vide its Confidential Communication No. PSC/Ex-10.KAS/39/2010 dated 21.11.2011, the Commission sent a General Merit-Cum-Select list to the Government comprising of aforementioned 189 candidates also indicating therein their inter se merit and the category under which each candidates was selected. Petitioner, Muddasar Buddar (SWP No. 1558/2012) figures at serial no. 82 in order of merit in the General Merit-Cum-Select list. Petitioners, Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh Rai (SWP No. 1608/2012) figure at rank position 144 and 150 respectively and petitioner, Vijay Kumar (SWP No. 1559/12) at rank position 189. For ready reference, I cull out the merit position of the petitioners:- S. No. Roll No. Name Parentage D.O.B CAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 82 2202607 Muddarsar Buddar Mir Mohd. For ready reference, I cull out the merit position of the petitioners:- S. No. Roll No. Name Parentage D.O.B CAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 82 2202607 Muddarsar Buddar Mir Mohd. Sharif Mir 07.08.85 OM 144 2202358 Hoshiar Chand Hari Saran 15.10.77 RBA 150 2203356 Sham Singh Rai Krishan Singh Rai 07.05.74 RBA 189 0902168 Vijay Kumar Bachan Lal 17.02.81 SC S. No. Roll No. Name Parentage D.O.B CAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Besides the General Merit-Cum-Select list, the Commission also sent category-wise select list to the Government indicating therein the service-wise preference of each candidate and the service allocated to him by the Commission. Petitioner, Muddasar Buddar, figures at serial no. 82 in open merit. Petitioners, Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh Rai figure at serial nos. 15 and 19 respectively in RBA category and petitioner, Vijay Kumar, figures at serial no. 16 in SC category. All the four petitioners were allocated Police Service. In the Remarks' column of these lists, ‘Short fall in Height’ was indicated against the names all the four petitioners. Such short fall was indicated against the names of all total eleven candidates all of whom were allocated Police Service. 5. Pursuant to the selection made by the Commission, the Government issued Government Order No. 02-GAD of 2012 dated 02.01.2012 whereby sanction was accorded to temporary appointment of 182 candidates out of 189 selected candidates. Seven out of aforementioned eleven candidates including the petitioners were not appointed. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions and thus started their ordeal in spite of having succeeded at all the stages of the selection process. 6. In SWP No. 1608/2012, petitioners inter alia seek writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to hold and declare non-inclusion/non-recommendation of the petitioners for appointment to J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service in RBA category by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and invalid and directing respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to recommend and appoint petitioners in J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service under RBA category with all consequential effects/benefits as admissible to appointees in terms of Government Order No. 02-GAD of 2012 dated 02.01.2012 Petitioners further seek writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to hold and declare non-inclusion/non-recommendation of the petitioners for appointment to J&K Police (Gazetted) Service in RBA category by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and invalid and directing respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to recommend and appoint petitioners in J&K Police (Gazetted) Service under RBA category with all consequential effects/benefits as admissible to appointees in terms of Government Order No. 02-GAD of 2012 dated 02.01.2012 7. In SWP Nos. 1558/2012 and 1559/2012, petitioners seek relief inter alia similar to that sought by the petitioners in SWP No. 1608/2012. However, relief sought by petitioner in SWP No. 1558/2012 relates to selection and appointment in open merit and relief sought by petitioner in SWP No. 1559/2012 relates to SC Category. 8. It is not disputed that all the four petitioners were duly selected under the categories applied for by them and their names were reflected in the General and category-wise select lists recommended to the Government by the Commission. They, however, were not appointed. In this backdrop, it is apt to refer to the stand of the Government, that is, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as to why petitioners have not been appointed. 9. In their identical reply filed in SWP Nos. 1558/2012 and 1608/2012, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 instead of stating as to why Government did not issue appointment orders of the petitioners have shifted the responsibility to the Commission contending inter alia and mainly that it is the Commission which under the Constitution of the State has to conduct examination and declare result of the candidates in accordance with criteria fixed and merit obtained by the candidates whereas the role of Government is confined only to issue appointment orders on the recommendation of the PSC and, therefore, Government hardly has any role to play in the selection process conducted by Commission. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have thus sought the objections filed by the Commission to be treated as the objections on their behalf as well. 10. While filing objections, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 seem not to have given much importance to the fact that all the petitioners had succeeded in the Combined Competitive Examination, they were allocated the Police Service and their names figured in the select list recommended to the Government by the Commission though with a noting that they suffered ‘short fall in Height’. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 seem not to have given much importance to the fact that all the petitioners had succeeded in the Combined Competitive Examination, they were allocated the Police Service and their names figured in the select list recommended to the Government by the Commission though with a noting that they suffered ‘short fall in Height’. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would have done better by explaining in their reply as to how selection of petitioners was tackled at Government level and how they were not found entitled to any benefit of Combined Competitive Examination in spite of their figuring in 189 selected candidates. Attention, therefore, shifts to the stand of PSC reflected in their reply filed in all the three petitions. 11. In its identical reply filed in SWP Nos. 1559/2012 and 1558/2012, stand of the Commission precisely was that petitioners having regard to preference of services given by them were allocated J&K Police Service. The Commission, however, came forward with a bit detailed stand by filing additional affidavit in all the three petitions. Salient features of the Additional Affidavit filed by the Commission are that petitioner, Muddassar Buddar had opted for Police Service as his first choice followed by Accounts Service and Administrative Service as second and third choice respectively. Petitioner, Hoshiar Chand had opted Administrative Service as first choice followed by Accounts Service and Police Service as second and third choice respectively. Petitioner, Sham Singh Rai had opted for Administrative Service as first choice and Police Service and Accounts Service as second and third choice and petitioner, Vijay Kumar had opted for Administrative Service as first choice followed by Accounts Service and Police Service as second and third choice. It is stated further that having regard to the comparative merit of the petitioners vis a vis other candidates selected under different categories and by applying Rule 7(8) of SRO 294 of 2005 only Police Service could be allocated to the petitioners. It is stated further that eleven candidates including petitioners selected for Police Service were suffering short fall in physical criteria but the Commission after deliberation had included their names in the Select list. 12. More detail about the stand of the Commission is available in communication dated 21.10.2011 (supra), copy each whereof has been produced along with the supplementary affidavit, which has been noticed. 12. More detail about the stand of the Commission is available in communication dated 21.10.2011 (supra), copy each whereof has been produced along with the supplementary affidavit, which has been noticed. To state precisely, after preparing merit list of 189 candidates equivalent to the advertised vacancies, the Commission got all the selected candidates examined by the Standing Medical Board followed by a Special Medical Board in respect of thirty six candidates. Twenty one candidates were found unfit for Police Service. Out of these twenty one candidates, ten got accommodating in services other than Police Service. Remaining eleven including the four petitioners, who could be allocated only Police Service in view of non-availability of any other service, were found falling short in height/chest standard for Police Service. The Commission, nonetheless, took a decision to include these eleven candidates in the select list on the basis of their merit and preference for appropriate decision by the Government. In taking this decision, the Commission also was of the view that in case these eleven candidates are not included in the Select list, they will have to be replaced by the candidates who had secured less marks than these candidates and also with a hope that four out of these eleven candidates may even fulfil the required physical criteria for Police Service in view of SRO 154 of 2011 dated 19.05.2011 whereby inter alia the standard of height and chest was rationalised by adopting the metric system. 13. What can thus be stated precisely, is that the Commission after completing the selection process had prepared and recommended to the Government a select list of 189 candidates equivalent to the number of vacancies which were referred for selection. All the four petitioners figured in this list at Serial Nos. 82, 144, 150 and 189 in order of their merit. The Commission also sent to the Government category-wise select lists showing also the options of preference given by and the service allocated to each candidate. All the petitioners were allocated Police Service. They, however, were not fulfilling the physical criteria for Police Service as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 that govern the conduct of Combined Competitive Examination by the Commission as they were suffering short fall in height/chest. In total there were eleven such candidates. All the petitioners were allocated Police Service. They, however, were not fulfilling the physical criteria for Police Service as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 that govern the conduct of Combined Competitive Examination by the Commission as they were suffering short fall in height/chest. In total there were eleven such candidates. Three of them, namely, Suresh Kumar Sharma, Muddasar Buddar Mir (petitioner), Showkat Ahmed Bhat were selected in open merit, five, namely, Mohd. Amin Bhat, Irshad Ahmed Sheikh, Hoshiar Chand (petitioner) and Sham Singh Rai (petitioner) and Shazia Akhter were selected under RBA category, Sunaina Bharti and Vijay Kumar (petitioner) under SC category and Pankaj Sasan under ALC category. The Commission neither allocated these candidates any service other than the Police Service nor excluded them from the select list on account of their not meeting the physical criteria for the Police Service. The Commission, as Communication dated 21.11.2011 (supra) shows, in its wisdom did not excludes these candidates from the select list taking the view that in that case they shall have to be replaced “by other candidates who had secured less marks than these candidates in the examination”. The Commission, however, does not seem to have made any endeavour to look into the possibility of allocating them any other service “in view of non-availability of any other service for them”. The Commission, therefore, took the decision of keeping their names in the select list, allocating Police Service to them and pointing out their short fall in height/chest in the select list. The Commission also nourished a hope that four of these candidates may fulfill the physical criteria for Police Service in view of SRO 154 of 2011 dated 19.05.2011, whereby the physical criteria provided for Police Service under the Rules of 2008 was rationalized during currency of the selection process. 14. How the Government on its part dealt with this situation is to be looked for in the record produced on its behalf as nothing in this regard is stated in their reply. Noting in the record produced on behalf of the Government would show that four out of the aforementioned eleven candidates, namely, Suresh Kumar Sharma and Showkat Ahmed Bhat (OM), Mohd. Noting in the record produced on behalf of the Government would show that four out of the aforementioned eleven candidates, namely, Suresh Kumar Sharma and Showkat Ahmed Bhat (OM), Mohd. Amin Bhat and Shazia Akhter (RBA) were accommodated and appointed in the Police Service by giving them benefit in terms of SRO 154 dated 19.5.2011 Such benefit, however, could not be given to the remaining seven candidates that include the four petitioners herein and the Government seems to have taken a decision to carry forward these seven vacancies. 15. The important questions thus arising in these three writ petitions are: “1. Whether the Commission was right in allocating Police Service to the aforementioned eleven candidates in spite of their not fulfilling the physical criteria for this service? 2. Whether the Commission has fallen in error in making the allocation of Police Service to those eleven candidates and should have allocated them any service other than Police Service, that is, Junior Scale Administrative Service or Accounts Service? 16. For determining the aforementioned questions it is important to understand as to what according to the Commission compelled it to allocate Police Service alone even to those candidate who to its knowledge did not fulfil prescribed physical criteria for this service. Petitioners Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh Rai (SWP No. 1608/2012) had applied under RBA category. Thirty seven out of 189 vacancies were reserved under RBA category, six out of which were in Administrative Service, seven in Accounts Service and twenty four in Police Service. Equal number of candidates was selected by the Commission under this category. Out of these thirty seven candidates ordinarily six were to be allocated Administrative Service, seven were to be allocated Accounts Service and twenty four Police Service. As against this the select list under RBA category would, however, show that one candidate (physically handicapped) alone was allocated Administrative Service, three were allocated Accounts Service and thirty three Police Service. The Commission has explained this discrepancy by stating in its reply that out of the six vacancies in the Administrative Service, five were allocated to those RBA candidates who got selected in open merit by application of Rule 7(8) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules notified vide SRO 294 dated 21.10.2005 (for short SRO 294) and the 6th vacancy was allocated to candidate selected under RBA category. Likewise, out of the seven vacancies in Accounts Service, four were allocated in terms of SRO 294 to those RBA candidates who got selected in open merit and remaining three were allocated to the three candidates selected under RBA category, who were having higher merit than the petitioners. 17. Petitioner Vijay Kumar had applied under SC category. Sixteen vacancies were reserved under SC category, three of which were in Administrative Service, three in Accounts Service and ten in Police Service. Equal number of candidates was selected under this category. Out of these sixteen candidates, three were to be allocated Administrative Service, other three were to be allocated Accounts Service and ten Police Service. As against this the select list under SC category would show that one candidate alone was allocated Administrative Service, three were allocated Accounts Service and twelve Police Service. The discrepancy has been explained by the Government in its reply by stating that out of three vacancies in Administrative Service reserved for SC category, two were allocated in terms of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294 to SC candidates, who were selected in open merit. The 3rd vacancy was allocated to a candidate selected under SC category having higher merit. 18. Application of SRO 294 is reflected in the entries made in the remarks' column of the select list(s). Five candidates of RBA category selected in open merit figuring at serial nos. 34, 37, 47, 49 & 51 of the open merit list have been allocated Administrative Service by giving them benefit of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294. Likewise, four other candidates belonging to RBA category figuring at serial nos. 68, 77, 102 & 107 in the open merit list have been allocated Accounts Service by giving them benefit of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294. Likewise, two candidates figuring at serial nos. 80 & 87 in the select list of open merit belong to SC category and have been allocated Administrative Service giving them benefit of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294. 19. Likewise, two candidates figuring at serial nos. 80 & 87 in the select list of open merit belong to SC category and have been allocated Administrative Service giving them benefit of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294. 19. What can thus be stated is that in spite of selecting candidates category-wise equivalent to the total number of available vacancies under each category in the three services for which Combined Competitive Examination was held, the Commission could not allocate the vacancies to the candidates selected against reserved vacancies in accordance with the quota reserved for each category in each service due to shifting of some of the vacancies of the reserved categories to the candidates belonging to those categories selected in the open merit in terms of SRO 294. Five vacancies in Administrative Service and four vacancies in Accounts Service reserved for RBA category got shifted to open merit and in exchanged RBA category seems to have got nine vacancies in Police Service raising their number from twenty four to thirty three. Because of this shifting Petitioner, Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh and some others selected under RBA category got allocated these exchanged vacancies notwithstanding that to the knowledge of the Commission they were not satisfying the physical criteria for Police Service. Likewise, out of three vacancies reserved for SC category in Administrative Service two got exchanged with vacancies in Police Service from open merit and two candidates including petitioner, Vijay Kumar were allocated Police Service over and above the ten vacancies reserved for SC category in that service notwithstanding that they were not satisfying the physical criteria for Police Service. Something like that happened in regard to other reserved categories also. 20. Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioners argued vehemently that in a Combined Competitive Examination option of preference given by a candidate does not confer right to any service on him and duty is cast on the selecting body or the Government to allocate services in a way that all the selected candidates are accommodated, having regard to their merit, option given by them and other factors like fulfillment of physical criteria for Police Service. Learned counsel urged that if the petitioners were falling short of physical criteria they were entitled to allocation of any other service and option of preference given by the other candidates should not have been allowed to cause any hindrance. Learned counsel urged that if the petitioners were falling short of physical criteria they were entitled to allocation of any other service and option of preference given by the other candidates should not have been allowed to cause any hindrance. If the petitioners were not found eligible for Police Service by the Commission, they should have been allocated Accounts Service and the candidates allocated Accounts Service could have been allocated Police Service. Mr. Bharti cited AIR 1990 KLJ 665 and (1998) 9 SCC 104 : AIR 1997 SC 2643 . 21. Per contra learned AAG, Mrs. Seema Shekhar and Mr. F.A Natnoo urged that having regard to their merit no service other that Police Service could have been allocated to the petitioners. Mr. F.A Natnoo, learned counsel for the Commission sought to explain that candidates are allocated service opted by them preference-wise on the basis of their inter se merit in the select list. Commission cannot allocate to a candidate a service which he is not entitled to having regard to his inter se merit at the cost of another candidate. Mr. Natnoo sought to explain that Accounts Service was allocated to the candidates, who, having regard to their inter se merit and option of performance, were found entitled for that service more than the petitioners. 22. The conduct of Combined Competitive Examination by the Commission for aforementioned three services is governed by the Rules of 2008. Rule 10 of these Rules deals with preparation of the merit list after written examination and the interview. It also deals with allocation of services to the selected candidates. Clause (f) of Rule 2 is also relevant in this regard. It is noticed that after commencement of the selection process in question, that is, the Combined Competitive Examination, 2010, government effected some important changes in the Rules of 2008 vide SRO 154 dated 19.05.2011, that is, prior to the preparation of the merit list and allocation of services to the selected candidates. Rule 10 came to be amended by adding a sentence ‘after its first proviso’. There is, however, no change in clause (f) of Rule 2. Clause (f) of Rule 2 reads: “2(f) “list” means the list of candidates prepared on the basis of merit in the examination for the various services and posts. Rule 10 came to be amended by adding a sentence ‘after its first proviso’. There is, however, no change in clause (f) of Rule 2. Clause (f) of Rule 2 reads: “2(f) “list” means the list of candidates prepared on the basis of merit in the examination for the various services and posts. Explanation:- Candidates shall be allotted to various services and posts keeping in view their merit in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for various services and posts.” Rule 10 in its amended form reads: ‘10. Merit List:- Marks thus obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination (written part as well as interview) would determine the final order of merit. Candidates shall be allotted to the various services keeping in view their inter se merit in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for the various services and posts: ‘The allotment of candidates to various services shall be made by the Commission.’ (added by SRO 154) Provided that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, though not qualifying by the standard prescribed by the Commission may be declared suitable for appointment thereto by reduced standards with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in administration, and recommended for appointment to vacancies reserved for members of such class in that service; Provided that physically challenged candidates shall be considered for selection in the services and against the posts identified for their respective categories in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2003 and in accordance with their merit-cum-preference, if otherwise found suitable for selection.” (underlining by me) 23. Rule 10 and Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 2008 on their reading in juxtaposition contemplate preparation of a merit list of the candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in the Combined Competitive (Main) Examination comprising of the written examination and the interview. Rules do not provide for preparation of a wait list, which might be the reason for the merit list prepared by the Commission being equivalent to the vacancies advertised category-wise. Rule 10 read with explanation to Rule 2(f) provides also for allocation of services to the candidates figuring in the merit list “in view of their inter se merit in the examination and preference expressed by them for various services and posts”. Rule 10 read with explanation to Rule 2(f) provides also for allocation of services to the candidates figuring in the merit list “in view of their inter se merit in the examination and preference expressed by them for various services and posts”. Important change in this behalf effected by SRO 154 of 2011 is that the task of allocation of services to the candidates has been entrusted to the Commission. 24. Rules of 2008 in general and Rules 10 and 2(f) in particular do not provide for any detailed mechanism for allocation of services to the selected candidates. It appears the merit obtained by a candidate governs allocation of a service to him in order of the option of preference given by him but the Rules do not say either expressly or impliedly that the Commission is bound by the option of preference given by the selected candidates. What the Rules say is that the allocation shall be made keeping in view the inter se merit of the selected candidates in examination and preferences expressed by them. It is for the Commission to make appropriate allocation of the services to the selected candidates and in that the Commission is not prevented from taking into consideration other factors, like actual availability of vacancies under various categories in all the three services after shifting of vacancies and any additional requirement of a particular service. It is important to note that for Police Service a candidate, besides finding his place in the merit list, has to meet a physical criteria also, which would be an additional factor to be considered at the time of making the allocations. Once the Commission selects candidates equivalent to the number of vacancies under various categories, allocation of service needs to be made in a way so as to accommodate all the selected candidates. Option of preference given by the candidates are to be used to facilitate the allocations and not to cause any hindrance. No candidate can stake claim to a particular service on the basis of the option of preference given by him and it shall be open for the Commission to make allocation in a way so that all the selected candidates are adjusted. 25. No candidate can stake claim to a particular service on the basis of the option of preference given by him and it shall be open for the Commission to make allocation in a way so that all the selected candidates are adjusted. 25. A question relating to allocation of services after Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to Notification dated 31.03.1981 for appointment to the vacancies in various services specified therein had earlier arisen before this Court in Amarjit Singh v. State, 1990 KLJ 665. The candidates were to indicate option of preference for different services. The petitioner therein had given his option of preferences for various services except Accounts Service. He, however, was appointed as Accounts Officer in the J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service contrary to the option given by him. The stand taken by the Government before this Court was that when the matter came up for consideration of question of allocation of services to the selected candidates large divergence was found between preference given by the candidates and availability of vacancies in various services and it was not possible to go by the preference of the candidates as that would have resulted in candidates possessing higher merit going to one particular service and candidates with lower merit going to any other service. The stand of the Government was that the petitioner was having no right to claim for a particular posting/appointment particularly when the grade, rate of increment etc. of all the posts is same. A learned single judge of this Court in this case has held: “3.….The option to mention the preference of the service was intended to facilitate the selection of the candidates by the Government to different services keeping in view the aptitude of the candidates in the form of options indicated as far as practicable but did not prevent the respondent-State to appoint the selected candidates in the combined competitive examination to a service for which he had not opted. The option cannot be equated with any right.” 26. A question relating to asking for option of candidates in a combined recruitment process had come up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kaushal Kishore Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 104 : AIR 1997 SC 2643 . The option cannot be equated with any right.” 26. A question relating to asking for option of candidates in a combined recruitment process had come up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kaushal Kishore Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 104 : AIR 1997 SC 2643 . Their Lordships in para 5 of the reporting have held: “5.….Asking for option of candidates is only a discretionary matter and the Government is not bound to select the candidates on the basis thereof. Under these circumstances, the candidates who applied for though opted for, have no acquired rights, much less indefeasible and absolute right for selection or appointment to a particular post. As stated earlier, the Government have to prescribe an objective and rational method or manner of allotment of the candidates selected to the Departments, depending upon their job necessity and requirement. Since the objective and rational criteria was not followed, we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.” 27. It is important to note that due to the shifting of some of the vacancies from reserved categories to the candidates of those categories selected in open merit by application of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294 complexion of vacancies in reserved categories had changed. In case of RBA category five out of six vacancies available in Administrative Service and six out of seven vacancies available in Accounts Service got shifted to open merit and there was corresponding increase in the vacancies in Police Services. Likewise, in SC category two out of three vacancies in Administrative Service got shifted to open merit and there was a corresponding increase in the vacancies in the Police service. At the same time Commission had found as many as five candidates selected under RBA category and two candidates under SC category unfit for Police Service. This change in the complexion of posts was crucial and an important factor to be taken into consideration while making the allocation. Allocation of Police Service to the candidates who did not qualify for that service was a farce and cruel culmination of their hard work. It needs to be pointed out that assigning the task of allocating the services to the Commission by virtue of amendment to the Rules of 2008 should not have been without any reason and purpose. Allocation of Police Service to the candidates who did not qualify for that service was a farce and cruel culmination of their hard work. It needs to be pointed out that assigning the task of allocating the services to the Commission by virtue of amendment to the Rules of 2008 should not have been without any reason and purpose. Perceivable purpose of assigning the task of allocating services to the Commission is that no unsuitable selected candidate is allocated a service he is not fit for. The purpose, however, was defeated in this case by allocating Police Service to those candidates by the Commission whom it had found physically unfit for that service. 28. Thus comes the question whether the Commission should have allocated the petitioners the Police Service or not. This question needs to be tackled case-wise: SWP No. 1608/2012: 29. Petitioners, Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh Rai, had applied under RBA category, for which thirty seven vacancies were reserved at the time of notification out of which six were in Administrative Service, seven in Accounts Service and twenty four in Police Service. Equal number of candidates under this category was selected. Complexion of the availability of vacancies in the three services, however, got changed due to operation of SRO 294. A duty was thus cast on the Commission to allocate the services in such a way that all the thirty seven selected candidates were accommodate. Exercise should have been made to allocate Police Service only to those candidates who were meeting physical criteria for that service and options of the candidates should not have been allow to come in the way of that exercise. 30. Five candidates selected under RBA category were suffering from short fall in physical criteria for the Police Service. In the opinion of the Commission two of these five candidates along with two others had to get benefit under SRO 154 which was given to them by the Government. The difficulty remained only in regard to three candidates, that is, herein petitioners and one Irshad Ahmed Sheikh. They could have been allocated the three vacancies in Accounts Service still available under RBA category and the three candidates to whom they were allocated could have been shifted to the Police Service. Such a course would have accommodated all the candidates. The difficulty remained only in regard to three candidates, that is, herein petitioners and one Irshad Ahmed Sheikh. They could have been allocated the three vacancies in Accounts Service still available under RBA category and the three candidates to whom they were allocated could have been shifted to the Police Service. Such a course would have accommodated all the candidates. The Commission should not have felt handicapped by the option of preference given by those three candidates in discharge of its duty to accommodate all the selected candidates. SWP Nos. 1558/2012 and 1559/2012: 31. Analogy as applied in SWP No. 1608/2012 could have been applied in case of petitioner, Vijay Kumar in SC category and even more easily in case of petitioner, Muddasar Buddar Mir, in open merit. Three vacancies under SC category were available in Accounts Service, two of which could have been allocated to the petitioner and the other candidate (Sunaina Bharti) instead of allocating them Police Service even though they did not meet the physical criteria for that service. Likewise, out of number of vacancies in Accounts Service allocated to different candidates in open merit, one could have been allocated to petitioner, Muddasar Buddar Mir, in exchange of vacancy in Police Service allocated to him. This could have been done conveniently in case of any candidate who had given Accounts Service as his last choice. Conclusion: 32. The Commission seems to have shown disregard to the interest of the candidates who after their hard labour had succeeded in finding place in the select list but got defeated in the process of allocation of service to them. The Commission, thus, lacked in making endeavour to adjust the meritorious candidates in a service other than police service for which they were not eligible and contradicted its own wisdom that if these candidates are not included in the select list, they will have to be replaced by candidates who had secured less marks. This has resulted into great injustice to the petitioners and similar other candidates and infracted their fundamental right to equality of opportunity relating to appointment in public employment under Article 15 of the Constitution. 33. This has resulted into great injustice to the petitioners and similar other candidates and infracted their fundamental right to equality of opportunity relating to appointment in public employment under Article 15 of the Constitution. 33. For all that said and discussed above, these three writ petitions have strong merit and are allowed without, however, disturbing allocation of service made to any other candidate for the reason that selection is more than five years old and the appointed candidates by now would have completed their trainings and acquired right to benefits in the services allocated to them. 34. By issue of writ of mandamus, Government/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to appoint the petitioners of SWP Nos. 1608/2012, 1558/2012 and 1559/2012 in the Jammu and Kashmir Accounts Service notionally from the date when other candidates selected in the same selection process were appointed and give them seniority from that date. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to take all administrative measures like creation of supernumerary post(s) for such period(s) as may be required AND to do good by completing the entire exercise without any delay, preferably within eight weeks hereafter. SWP No. 1352/2012: 35. Heard and perused the record. 36. This petition also arises out of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) pursuant to Notification No. PSC/Exam/10/43 dated 01.05.2010 Factual aspects recorded and discussed hereinabove shall as far as may be apply to this petition as well. 37. Case of the petitioner, briefly, is that in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 conducted by the Commission pursuant to Notification No. PSC/Exam/10/43 dated 01.05.2010, he applied under ALC category. He secured 1142 marks. Record produced on behalf of the State/respondent No. 1 shows that four candidates, namely, Pankaj Sassan, Pankaj Soodan, Surinder Sharma and Zaffar Mahdi were selected under ALC category and all were allocated Police (Gazetted) Service. In the select list under ALC category short fall in height was indicated against the name of Pankaj Sassan, who figures at serial no. 1 in the said list. 38. Petitioner's case further is that Panakaj Sassan has not been appointed due to short fall in height whereas Surinder Sharma has not joined. In the select list under ALC category short fall in height was indicated against the name of Pankaj Sassan, who figures at serial no. 1 in the said list. 38. Petitioner's case further is that Panakaj Sassan has not been appointed due to short fall in height whereas Surinder Sharma has not joined. Petitioner claims that he is next in merit under ALC category and is eligible for selection and appointment against one of the two posts lying vacant due to aforementioned reason. Petitioner's grievance is that respondents have not accorded consideration to the representation of the petitioner claiming his selection and appointment in the Police (Gazetted) Service in ALC category. Petitioner, thus, seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to select and appoint him. 39. Factual aspect of the case set as out by the petitioner has not been denied by the Commission, herein respondent No. 2, in its objections filed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the Commission, however, submits that no wait list has been prepared by the Commission and petitioner cannot be appointed against any post, even if rendered vacant, which is required to be filled up in next selection process. 40. The only and the simple question arising in this writ petition is whether a candidate next in merit can be recommended for appointment or not in case a candidate figuring in the select list has not joined. This question, however, is no more res integra in relation to the Combined Competitive Examination in question as it was earlier raised in SWP No. 1067/2012 which came to be decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions with SWP No. 2223/2011 as lead case vide judgment dated 08.08.2013, which has been upheld by the learned Division Bench in a bunch of LPA(s) with LPA(SW) No. 195/2013 as lead case vide judgment dated 16.09.2014 41. Learned Single Judge has held: “In my considered opinion, absence of provision in the Recruitment Rules for maintaining a ‘wait list’ does not justify reference of vacancies, remaining unfilled on account of non-joining of selected candidates, to Public Service Commission for being filled up by initiating fresh process of Combined Competitive Examination. Such a course is detrimental both for the service as well as for the candidates who barely fall short of the cutoff marks. Such a course is detrimental both for the service as well as for the candidates who barely fall short of the cutoff marks. My view is forfeited by the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in B.S.N.L v. Abhishek Shukla 2009 AIR SCW 3075.” 42. Learned writ Court, therefore, while finding the petitioner in SWP No. 1067/2012 entitled to consideration for being appointed against a post having remained unfilled or fallen vacant due to non-joining of any candidate, directed the respondents to accord consideration to appointment of the petitioner. Learned Division Bench has upheld the judgment of learned writ Court. 43. In aforementioned scenario, having regard to the factual as well as legal aspects, this writ petition is allowed by directing respondents by issue of a writ of mandamus to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for his selection and appointment against a post having remained unfilled or rendered vacant under ALC category due to non-joining of any candidate. This exercise be completed without any delay, preferably, within six weeks period after petitioner provides a copy of this judgment in the office of respondent No. 2. Petitioner's claim shall be allowed/disposed of on merits with a speaking order. SWP No. 979/2012: 44. Heard and perused the record. 45. This petition also arises out of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) pursuant to Notification No. PSC/Exam/10/43 dated 01.05.2010 Factual aspects recorded and discussed hereinabove shall as far as may be apply to this petition as well. 46. Case of the petitioner, briefly, is that in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 conducted by the Commission pursuant to Notification No. PSC/Exam/10/43 dated 01.05.2010, he applied in Open Merit category. He and three other candidates secured 1220 marks. However, only two of the four could make it to the final list. He figured next after the last selected candidate in the open merit at serial nos. 112 and 113 in the list. Petitioner's case further is that three candidates in the open merit, who were allocated Police (Gazetted) Service, have not been selected as they were found falling short of physical criteria for Police Service. Petitioner, thus, claims selection and appointment instead one of the said three candidates being next in merit after last candidate selected in open merit. 47. Petitioner's case further is that three candidates in the open merit, who were allocated Police (Gazetted) Service, have not been selected as they were found falling short of physical criteria for Police Service. Petitioner, thus, claims selection and appointment instead one of the said three candidates being next in merit after last candidate selected in open merit. 47. Correct it is that three candidates selected in open merit, namely, Suresh Kumar Sharma, Muddasar Buddar Mir and Showkat Ahmed Bhat, who were allocated Police (Gazetted) Service were falling short of physical criteria prescribed for that service. The Commission had recommended these candidates along with ten other similar candidates indicating short fall in their physical criteria. However, record reveals that later two of them, namely, Suresh Kumar and Showkat Ahmed Bhat got benefit under SRO 154 dated 19.05.2011 whereby inter alia physical criteria provided for Police Service was rationalized and both of them have been appointed. In regard to third candidate, Muddasar Buddar Mir, his writ petition (SWP No. 1558/2012) has been allowed hereinabove. No cause of action, thus, survives for the petitioner. 48. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 49. Record produced by Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Additional Advocate General be returned to her.