JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Quashment of Government Order No. 320-Agri. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015 issued by respondent No. 2 is sought for whereby holding petitioners not eligible for appointment to the post of Horticulture Technician Grade-V as their certificates/diploma were found invalid. Further direction to respondents to issue formal appointment orders in favour of petitioners, selected for the post of Horticulture Technician-IV for District Cadre, Doda, Poonch, Kathua, Jammu and Udhampur in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2008, dated 08.05.2008 and Select List dated 30.05.2012 in light of repeated verifications wherein it has been held that Diploma obtained by petitioners are authentic and they are eligible for appointment in Government and non-Government Organization throughout India, is also sought for. Applications, vide Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2008, dated 08.05.2008, were invited for filing up, amongst others, 14 posts of Horticulture Technician-IV for District Cadre Doda, Poonch, Kathua, Jammu and Udhampur in Horticulture Department. Prescribed qualification for the aforesaid post of Horticulture Technician-W was 10+2 with one year Basic Horticulture Training. Petitioners responded thereto under different categories. They were shortlisted for interview. Subsequently they were provisionally selected. Petitioners were finally selected vide No. DIP/JK-1535, dated 30.05.2012, respondent No. 3 as Horticulture Technician-IV in their respective District Cadres under different categories. Formal appointment orders; despite lapse of one year, in favour of petitioners were not issued. Aggrieved, they approached this Court with SWP No. 1310/2013, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 05.06.2013 directing respondent-Service Selection Board to consider and decide the notice dated 20.03.2013 within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, despite repeated verification/authentication, the respondents failed to issue the formal appointment orders in favour of petitioners which again forced petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court with SWP No. 2732/2014. The petitioners were under a legitimate expectation that formal appointment orders would be issued in their favour in light of aforesaid order. However, respondent No. 1 vide Government Order No. 320-Agri. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015 rejected claim of petitioners, holding that petitioners are not eligible for appointment in the Department as their certificates are unauthorized and invalid. Government Order No. 320-Agri. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015, impugned herein, is stated to have been passed in clear contravention of guidelines passed by U.P. Government and the Service Recruitment Rules. 2. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015 rejected claim of petitioners, holding that petitioners are not eligible for appointment in the Department as their certificates are unauthorized and invalid. Government Order No. 320-Agri. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015, impugned herein, is stated to have been passed in clear contravention of guidelines passed by U.P. Government and the Service Recruitment Rules. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed objections contending therein that as per SRO 235, the qualification required for the post in question was 10+2 pass with one year Basic Horticulture Training, whereas the basic qualification required for possessing diploma in Horticulture is Matric. Hence, as per SRO 235, the petitioners are not holding the requisite qualification. Despite not having the requisite qualification, the petitioners, on the basis of having passed 10+2 and possessing Diploma in Horticulture from National Centre for Vocational Training Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and not 10+2 with Basic Horticulture Training, were recommended by respondent No. 4, i.e. Service Selection Board, for appointment as Horticulture Technician-P/, subject to the checking verifying/authenticating all their original documents/Academics/Technical Qualifications etc. by appointing department. It is insisted that the petitioners' documents, on scrutiny, did not meet the required verification test. Petitioners approached this Court with writ petition and earned an order of reconsideration. Petitioners are basing their claims for being appointed as Horticulture Technician-IV, with the answering respondent on the basis of having secured One Year Diploma Course Certificate from National Centre for Vocational Training Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. It is pertinent to mention that in spite of having a long correspondence with the U.P. Government with regard to the authenticity and validity of petitioners' Diploma Certificates, no categorical and unambiguous information has been forth coming, certifying the validity and legitimacy of their qualification. It is contended that respondents after considering the entire correspondence and information received, have come to a conclusion that the diploma certificates of the petitioners are invalid and unauthorized, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be appointed against the post of Horticulture Technician-IV as they do not have prescribed qualification required under SRO 235. It is also averred that similar nature of case came before Srinagar Wing of this Court for consideration in SWP No. 1413/2015 titled Aijaz Ahmad Mir and others v. State and others and vide judgment dated 09.07.2015, said writ petition came to be dismissed. 3. It is also averred that similar nature of case came before Srinagar Wing of this Court for consideration in SWP No. 1413/2015 titled Aijaz Ahmad Mir and others v. State and others and vide judgment dated 09.07.2015, said writ petition came to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners' states that Order impugned is in violation of the direction dated 15.05.2015 passed in SWP No. 2732/2014 whereby this Court, after hearing both sides, directed respondents to consider case of petitioners in terms of Notes-121 and 125 of the office note sheets of the Administrative Department. He further states that order impugned is contrary to the records as the same is evident from Annexure-H, i.e. the office file of the respondents, which was furnished to one of the petitioners in response to an RTI Application. It is submitted that at Note-121, Public Law Officer, Agriculture Production Department has asked Director Horticulture Jammu i.e. respondent No. 3 herein to issue formal appointment order in favour of the selectees i.e. petitioner herein and further at Note-125, it was specifically mentioned that it took two years for getting the technical certificate verified from Government of Uttar Pradesh and since the matter was under process between the State Government and Government of Uttar Pradesh, there is no fault of the candidates for getting formal appointment orders. Besides this reference to Note-121 of PLO was also made, as such, there was no justification on the part of respondent No. 2 to issue impugned order dated 12.10.2015, rejecting petitioners' claim. Besides this reference to Note-121 of PLO was also made, as such, there was no justification on the part of respondent No. 2 to issue impugned order dated 12.10.2015, rejecting petitioners' claim. Learned counsel asserts that rejection order being bad in the eyes of law, is required to be set aside and further the impugned order is clearly an exhibition of non-application of mind and that order impugned is also bad in the eye of law as respondent No. 2 cannot reject the claim of the petitioners in view of the settled position of law, which says that when a selection committee, which consists of persons with sufficient experience/expertise in the field with the knowledge of job requirements and necessary qualifications in this regard having examined the qualifications possessed by the petitioners, there is no occasion for the appointing authority not to give effect to the said select list, but contrary to the settled legal position the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order whereby claims of the petitioner for appointment have been rejected by falsely carving out grounds not tenable under law. Reference in this regard is invited to the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled State of Punjab & Ors. v. Suman Lata reported as 1999 (9) Supreme 320 . It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph No. 4 here as under:- "(4) When the Selection Committee which consists of persons with sufficient experience in that field with the knowledge of job requirements and necessary qualifications in this regard having examined the qualification possessed by the respondent selected the respondent as Arts and Crafts Teachers, the District Education Officer ought not have cancelled that appointment." Learned counsel contends that the facts of the instant petition is identical to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case. 5. 5. Here it is relevant to point out that initially the appointment order in favour of the petitioners could not be issued as Services Selection Board is written to the U.P. Government for authenticating and verifying the diploma possessed by petitioners and in this regard attention of this Court has been invited to Annexure-D, i.e. the response given by Horticulture Department to an RTI Application, wherein at the bottom the Horticulture Department divulge that appointment orders cannot be issued till clarification with regards to authentication/recognition of the concerned Institute and genuineness is received from the Services Selection Board. Further it is evident from Annexures-F and G written by Agriculture Production Department, Govt. of U.P. to J&K Services Selection Board and Agriculture Production Department J&K Government, wherein it was clarified that the courses imparted through the Institution i.e. National Centre for Vocational Training, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) are eligible for appointment in Govt./Non-Government Institutions throughout India. 6. The qualification, which was prescribed in the advertisement Notification for the post of Horticulture Technician-IV, was 10+2 with one year basic Horticulture Training as indicated in J&K Horticulture (Sub-ordinate) Services Recruitment Rules, 1998. All the petitioners fulfill the said qualification and after undergoing the selection process, the petitioners were recommended for appointment by the selection agency and as already pointed out after the requisite clarification, there was no room for the Administrative Department to give a U-Turn when there was no reason to deprive petitioners of appointment. 7. The stand of respondent No. 4 i.e. the Services Selection Board is that the petitioners were duly considered by the selection committee and the list was furnished to the Intending Department. The Services Selection Board has no role in the appointment of the selected candidates. 8. On the contrary the respondent No. 2 and 3 in their objections questioned the eligibility of the petitioners and also relied upon Judgment dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Srinagar Wing of this Court in SWP No. 1413/2015 which was dismissed. Mr. L.K. Moza, learned AAG, has contended that in view of the aforesaid judgment the present petition should also be dismissed. Mr. Moza has further submitted that the Institutions, from where diplomas were obtained, were not registered with ICAR. 9. Mr. L.K. Moza, learned AAG, has contended that in view of the aforesaid judgment the present petition should also be dismissed. Mr. Moza has further submitted that the Institutions, from where diplomas were obtained, were not registered with ICAR. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Judgment relied upon by the respondents is distinguishable as the petitioners in that case were not eligible for the post in question as they were lacking in the basic qualification as per the Advertisement Notification. Since the petitioners herein are eligible, having the requisite qualification, as such, the cited Judgment has no parity with the instant case. Further, the petitioners herein are possessed of the qualification notified in the Advertisement and there was no justification for the Administrative Department to overturn the recommendations of the Services Selection Board when it had already sought the clarification from the U.P. Govt. with regard to the genuineness of the certificates of the petitioners and the same was certified and authenticated by Govt. of U.P. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification in denying appointment to the petitioners. 11. Viewed thus, this writ petition is allowed. Govt. Order No. 320-Agri. of 2015, dated 12.10.2015 is quashed. Respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, who were selected for the post of Horticulture Technician-IV for District Cadre Doda, Poonch, Kathua, Jammu and Udhampur pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2008, dated 08.05.2008 and Select List dated 30.05.2012 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s).