JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. The case set up by the petitioners, four in number claiming to be residents of District Udhampui", is that respondent-J & K Service Selection Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "respondent Board") vide Advertisement Notification No. 06/2008, dated 28.05.2008, invited applications for appointment of Physical Education Teachers in District Cadre, Udhampur. Petitioners claim to have responded to the aforesaid Notification and were considered in the process of selection. It is claimed by the petitioners that in the final selection list issued by the respondent-Board, petitioners though not selected, yet made it to the wait list. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition have challenged the select list, in which respondents 5 to 13 have been shown to have selected for the posts of Physical Education Teachers in District Udhampur. The challenge to the selection of respondents 5 to 13 is made primarily on the ground that private respondents 5 to 13 do not belong to District of Udhampur and as such, could not have been selected against the post of Physical Education Teachers borne on District Cadre Udhampur. It is contended by the petitioners that there was specific stipulation in the Advertisement Notice contained in Clauses (iv) and (v) of the Notification, which for facility of reference are reproduced here as under:- "IV-Application for more than one Post/District Cadre. (i) Candidates who are eligible for more than one post are required to apply on the prescribed application form separately for each post or for the same post in different cadres. The single application form filled in for more than one post/cadre shall render the application liable to rejection without notice. (ii) SRO 343 dated 13.10.2004 allows the candidate to apply only in District for district cadre post and in one Division in respect of Divisional Cadre post who are permanent residents of J & K State without prescribing the conditions of domiciliary requirements. Provided that if any candidate applies for more than one district or division, his/her candidature shall be considered only for the district or division in which he/she is ordinarily residing. Provided that if any candidate applies for more than one district or division, his/her candidature shall be considered only for the district or division in which he/she is ordinarily residing. (iii) Those applicants who choose to apply for district cadre posts other than the district of domicile shall deposit their application forms in the district where they are residing." Clause-V:- The candidates, who have applied for one and the same post in more than one district including the district of his/her domicile, shall be considered for the district in which he/she is ordinarily residing and he/she shall not be considered for selection in other districts as mentioned in the advertised notice. Those of the candidates who in violation of the rules have applied in more than one district and none of the districts is the districts of their domicile, shall be considered only for one district at the discretion of the board.' 2. On the basis of the aforesaid stipulation contained in the aforesaid Advertisement Notification and by making reference of SRO 343 of 2004, dated 13.10.2004, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that although eligible candidates were entitled to apply in any District irrespective of their domicile, yet in case a candidate applies for more than one District or Division, his/her candidature was to be considered only for the District or Division in which he or she ordinarily resides. Learned counsel further contends that this mandate of Statute and stipulation contained in the Advertisement Notification was not adhered to and private respondents 5 to 13, who had applied in more than one District, were considered for District Udhampur, though none of them was ordinarily residing in the aforesaid district. The petitioners have given status of domicile/residence of private respondents and their appointment as Physical Education Teachers, Udhampur, in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition. For facility of reference, Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition is reproduced as under:- (i) Narinder Singh, S/o. Shri Joginder Singh, R/o. Village Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu, applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in District Jammu, Udhampur and Kathua. His ordinary place of residence is district Jammu which is evidence from S. No. 192, B. Code 439794 in notification dated 22.09.2008 whereby the candidates were called for interview in District Cadre, Jammu. His ordinary place of residence is district Jammu which is evidence from S. No. 192, B. Code 439794 in notification dated 22.09.2008 whereby the candidates were called for interview in District Cadre, Jammu. The said respondent is shown to be the resident of district Jammu and was called for interview in district Jammu on 03.10.2008 and vide impugned select list has been selected in district cadre Udhampur. (ii) Sanjeev Sharma, S/o. Shri Om Parkash Sharma, R/o. Dinga' Amb, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in District Kathua and Udhampur. The said candidate was called for interview in District Kathua vide notification published in Daily Excelsior dated 23.09.2008 in which at S. No. 99, B. Code 592527, the respondent's name is reflected who has been called for interview on 11.10.2008. The respondent has given his domicile/ordinary address of residence as Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. Despite the fact the said candidates' residence was district Kathua, but he has been interviewed in both the districts i.e. Kathua and Udhampur as well and finally by virtue of impugned select list, he has been selected as Physical Education teacher in District Cadre, Udhampur. (iii) Anjana Gupta, D/o. Shri Hans Raj Gupta, R/o. Mukherjee Bazar, W. No. 4, Udhampur applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in district cadre Reasi and Udhampur. The said candidate has shown her residence in district Udhampur, however, she was called for interview in District Reasi as well. In terms of the advertisement notification, the respondent has given her permanent domicile of district Udhampur, therefore, she could not have been considered for selection or even called for interview in District Reasi. It is evident that vide notification bearing No. SSB/Div./J/2008/222529-35, dated 22.09.2008 whereby the candidates were invited for interview for the post of Physical Education Teacher district cadre, Reasi. In the said notification at S. No. 70, B. Code 946717, the respondent has been shown to be the resident of District Udhampur but has been called for interview in District Reasi on 06.10.2008. Copy of the Notification, dated 22.09.2008 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure-D. (iv) Pushpinder Singh, S/o. Shri Raghubir Singh, R/o. Akhnoor is the resident of District Jammu but applied for district Udhampur and District Jammu both. Copy of the Notification, dated 22.09.2008 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure-D. (iv) Pushpinder Singh, S/o. Shri Raghubir Singh, R/o. Akhnoor is the resident of District Jammu but applied for district Udhampur and District Jammu both. The fact that the respondent is ordinarily domicile of District Jammu is evidence from S. No. 233, B. Code 4398794 in notification dated 22.09.2008 whereby the candidates were called for interview for district cadre Jammu. The respondent being the ordinarily domicile district Jammu has been interviewed in 02 district and has been selected for District Udhampur of which he is neither a permanent resident nor domicile. (v) Ranbir Singh, S/o. Shri Raghunath Singh, R/o. R.S. Pura, District Jammu is the permanent resident of district Jammu which is evidence from S. No. 274, B. Code 204102 in Notification dated 22.09.2009. The said respondent applied in District Jammu as well as District Udhampur and by virtue of impugned select list, has been selected in District Udhampur. (vi) Mohd. Shakur Khan, S/o. Shri Sher Khan, R/o. Tehsil Mendhar, district Poonch is the permanent resident of district Poonch. The said respondent applied for the post of Physical education Teacher in District Poonch as well as District Udhampur. The said respondent believed to have been interviewed for district cadre Poonch and by virtue of impugned select list, has been selected as Physical Education teacher, in District Cadre, Udhampur. (vii) Mohd. Khalid Khan, S/o. Shri Mohd. Kafil Khan, R/o. District Poonch is the permanent resident of district Poonch. The respondent applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in District Poonch as well as District Udhampur. The said respondent believed to have been interviewed for district cadre Poonch and by virtue of impugned select list, has been selected as Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre, Udhampur. (viii) Ajay Kumar Tandon, S/o. Shri Jagdish Mitter, R/o. District Poonch, the said respondent is the permanent resident of District Poonch and applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in District Poonch, Ramban, Kathua. The respondent in pursuant to the original notification, dated 28.05.2008 was interviewed in district Ramban as well and in pursuant to the first notification appointed as Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre Ramban. The respondent in pursuant to the original notification, dated 28.05.2008 was interviewed in district Ramban as well and in pursuant to the first notification appointed as Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre Ramban. Now by virtue of the impugned select list the respondent is shown to have been selected in district cadre, Udhampur as well which clearly establishes that he has been the domicile of district Ramban but has been selected in district Udhampur. (ix) Satish Chander Sharma, S/o. Shri Baldev Raj Sharma, R/o. District Samba. The respondent is ordinarily residence of district Samba but applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in District Doda, Udhampur, Jammu and Samba. Perusal of the notification dated 22.09.2008 at S. No. 99, B. Code 592527 clearly makes it evident that the respondent has been shown to be the residence of district Jammu in which he has been interviewed on 11.10.2008. In addition to this, the said respondent in terms of notification has been appointed as Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre, Doda and now in terms of impugned select list has been shown to be the selected candidate in district Jammu as well. 3. Respondent Board has filed the reply, but submissions made in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, in particular, have not been specifically denied. A very short and cryptic reply has been filed by the Board in which respondent Board has taken a stand that the Select List was prepared strictly in accordance with SRO 343 of 2004, dated 13.10.2004 and the candidates who had applied for two districts and made it to the final select list in both districts, said candidates were recommended for appointment in district of domicile. Nothing more was said in the objections to substantiate the aforesaid stand. 4. From the perusal of SRO 343 of 2004, dated 13.10.2004 and clear stipulation contained in clauses (iv) and (v) of the Advertisement Notification, it is abundantly clear that in case a candidate is found to have applied for more than one district, his/her candidature is required to be considered only for the district where he or she is actually residing. Admittedly, as stated by the petitioners and not disputed by the respondent Board, none of private respondents was ordinarily resident of District Udhampur, whereas all of them had applied for more than one districts. Admittedly, as stated by the petitioners and not disputed by the respondent Board, none of private respondents was ordinarily resident of District Udhampur, whereas all of them had applied for more than one districts. In absence of specific denial of the averments made by the petitioners in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, this Court has no option but to believe the petitioners. That being the situation, selection of private respondents 5 to 13 is admittedly not in consonance with SRO 343 of 2004 and clear stipulation as contained in clauses (iv) and (v) of the Advertisement Notice. The private respondents had applied for more than one district, were entitled to be considered only in the district in which they were ordinarily residing. The Board does not appear to have followed this mandate of Statute and stipulation contained in their own Notification which renders the selection of respondents 5 to 13 bad in the eyes of law. 5. Interestingly, respondents 5 to 13, who were beneficiary of illegal action of the respondent Board have also not turned up to defend their selection despite having been served in the writ petition. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to hold the selection of private respondents 5 to 13 bad in the eyes of law having been made in violation of SRO 343 of 2004, dated 13.10.2004 and clear stipulation contained in the clauses (iv) and (v) of the Advertisement Notification issued by the respondent Board. 7. Viewed thus, this writ petition is allowed. The selection of private respondents 5 to 13 is quashed. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondent Board to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment as Physical Education Teachers in District Cadre Udhampur provided they are next in the order of merit in the selection so conducted pursuant to the Advertisement Notification No. 06/2008, dated 28.05.2008. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s). COA(SW) No. 215/2012. In view of the disposal of main writ petition, nothing survives in this petition. Accordingly, the same shall also stand disposed of. Rule, if any, issued is hereby discharged.