JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Recruitment Notice dated 24th March 2000, for the post of Prosecuting Officer in J&K Police, was issued by Director General of Police, J&K, Srinagar - respondent No. 2. Petitioner as also private respondents responded thereto. Petitioner did not find place in Select List. Aggrieved of his non-selection, he has knocked at portals of this Court with writ petition on hand, seeking writ of certiorari, quashing selection of private respondents, with further direction to respondents to adhere to the conditions laid down in selection list of Prosecuting Officer in pursuance to the advertisement notice and accordingly petitioner be brought on the selection list. Respondents 1 & 2, in their reply, aver that though petitioner appeared in physical test and written test, he could not be called for interview (viva-voce) as he did not fare well in the written test. However in pursuance of the directions of this Court, petitioner was interviewed with other candidates, who had qualified for the interview. 2. In opposition to writ petition, private respondents, in their counter affidavit, maintain that they possess the requisite eligibility for selection and appointment to the post of Prosecuting Officer in terms of the recruitment rules. 3. Writ Court vide order dated 23rd September 2016, having regard to issue involved in the matter, directed listing of writ petition before the Division Bench. 4. Heard and considered. 5. While opening the limb of argument, the petitioner states that private respondents lack basic eligibility as stipulated in the advertisement notice and that neither advertisement notice nor any rules provide for relaxation of the basic eligibility provided under the advertisement notice and therefore, private respondents cannot be considered for selection. Petitioner's contention is that private respondents do not possess two years actual experience at the Bar as prescribed in the advertisement notice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondents states, and rightly so, that private respondents possess the requisite eligibility for the post of Prosecuting Officer, and that the condition contained in advertisement notice as regards "two years' actual experience at Bar", is not supported by the recruitment rules inasmuch as Rule 176 of J&K Police Rules Manual, does not prescribe Two years' experience at Bar but stipulates the only qualification of Law for the post of Prosecuting Officer in the Police Department. Learned counsel further states that private respondents possess higher merit than petitioner. 7. Learned counsel further states that private respondents possess higher merit than petitioner. 7. Given the case set up by the parties, it would be apropos to have a glance of Rule 176 of J&K Police Rules, 1960. It provides: "176. Qualifications for direct appointment as Inspectors, Sub Inspectors or Assistant Sub-Inspectors 1. Applications for direct appointment to the rank of Inspector, (1) Applications for direct appointment to the rank of Inspector, Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector shall at the discretion of the Inspector-General be referred to the Superintendent of the district in which the applicant resides direct for report in Form 25. 2. The application should be (i) Education certificate in original or a copy attested by a Magistrate or by any other gazetted officer; (ii) Permanent resident ship certificate; (iii) Testimonial in support of the applicants having taken part in sport activities. (iv) Age according to the Matriculation Certificate. The applicant must be between 18 and 25 years of age. (v) Applications of only such candidates will be considered for selection who conform to the following physical standards fixed by the Government:- (i) Height 5'-6" (ii) Chest Un-expanded 32" Expanded 33" The minimum academic qualification for the post of an Assistant Sub Inspector is Matriculation and a candidate for Sub-Inspector-ship or Inspector-ship should ordinarily be a graduate. The Inspector General of Police may in special cases relax this educational qualification. Note: Legal practitioners selected for appointment as Police Prosecutors may be enrolled up to the age of 30 years." 8. From the above quoted rule, it can very well be said that for selection and appointment to the post of Prosecuting Officer, a candidate is required to possess qualification of Law and that the rule does not provide any other qualification, muchless two years' actual practice at Bar, therefore, Thus, the stand taken by petitioner to stoutly place his reliance on the condition that private respondents do not possess "two years" actual practice at Bar" is proved to be Achilles' heel in his case against private respondents. In the aforementioned backdrop, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with connected MPs. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.