JUDGMENT : M. K. HANJURA, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 7th of May, 2016, passed by the Writ Court in SWP No.2219/2012, titled ‘Zulfikar Ahmad Wani v. State of JK & Ors.’ 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the father of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein retired from the Police Department on 28th of February, 2002, as Deputy Director (Prosecution). Pursuant to his request for considering the appointment of his son in the Police Department, the writ petitioner/ respondent herein came to be appointed as a Wireless Operator (Constable) in the Police Department in March, 2002, in relaxation of the rules. The writ petitioner/ respondent herein continued to work as Wireless Operator (Constable). However, in the meanwhile, in the year 2005, his father made a representation before the competent authority for appointing the writ petitioner/ respondent herein as Sub Inspector (SI) on the same analogy as has been evolved in the case of some similarly situated persons. On examination and consideration of the request/representation aforesaid, the Home Department rejected the request/representation of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein vide its order dated 30th of August, 2005. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent herein filed a petition before this Court, being SWP No. 928/2005, which was contested and accordingly, dismissed by the Writ Court vide judgment and order dated 22nd of March, 2006. Not contended with the Writ Court’s decision, the writ petitioner/ respondent herein filed an appeal against the same, being LPA No. 180/2006, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25th of July, 2008, the relevant excerpts of which are detailed below: “In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself directing respondents to consider request of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with law considering all aspects of the matter as well as taking into account the orders by which such relaxation was granted to other similarly situated persons. Orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 3. Orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 3. The Government vide Order No.472(P) of 2009 dated 1st of June, 2009, accorded consideration to the claim of the petitioner in compliance with the judgment aforesaid and ordered as under: “Whereas, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the matter has been duly reconsidered and it is found that there is no justification for considering the appointment of the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector in the Police in relaxation of the rules merely on the ground that his father had worked and superannuated from the J&K Police. Now, therefore, the claim of the petitioner having been duly considered in pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court order in the LPA No.180/2006, CMP No.248/2006 dated 25.07.2008, titled Zulfiker Ahmad Wani V/s State of J&K & Others, is hereby rejected.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the rejection of his claim, the respondent herein filed a petition, being SWP No.957/2009, before this Court, which was decided and determined by an order dated 31st of January, 2012, of this Court, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced hereinbelow, verbatim et literatim: “15. A bare look at the government Order Home 472(P) 2009 dated 1st June, 2009, reveals that the respondents did not comply with directions of LPA Court dated 25.7.2008, in letter and spirit. In terms of the LPA Court order, the respondents were directed to (i) consider all aspects of the matter and (ii) take into account the orders by which such relaxation was granted to other similarly situated persons. The respondents while taking a decision in the matter did not at all take into account the orders by which relaxation was granted to other similarly situated persons. The respondents completely ignored this part of the LPA Court direction. The respondents were expected to explain and justify why and how S/Shri Shri Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Manzoor Ahmad Khan, wards of Police officers/ officials having same qualification as that of the petitioner were appointed as ASI in Police Department even in relaxation of eligibility criteria as regards age and height and the petitioner also a ward of a police officer/ official having same academic qualification to his credit, was singled out for discriminatory treatment and appointed against a lower post i.e. Wireless Operator (Constable). The respondents by not complying with the LPA Court order dated 25.7.2008, while rejecting the petitioner’s claim have rendered the order No. Home 472 (P) of 2009 dated 01.6.2009, impugned in the petition liable to be quashed.” 5. The State/appellant herein, by an order bearing No.759(P) of 2012 dated 31st of August, 2012, considered the claim of the petitioner and came to the following conclusion: “Whereas, the case of the petitioner has been examined afresh and it has been found that: - i. He has been appointed as Wireless Operator (Constable) in the Police Department in relaxation of the rules. He is a graduate and had not participated in any selection process but had been appointed merely on the plea that his father namely, Shri G. M. Wani retired as Deputy Director Prosecution in Police Department on 28.02.2002. ii. Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan S/o Shri Sher Khan (S.I. in the Police Department) was appointed as ASI in relaxation of the rules by the Home Department vide order No. Home-186 (P) of 2005 dated 28.04.2005 after the retirement of Shri Sher Khan who met with an accident rendering him almost disabled. iii. Shri Nazir Ahmad Bhat, a Post graduate in Sociology was appointed as ASI in Police Department in relaxation of rules vide Government Order No. Home-140(P) of 2002 dated 18.03.2002. iv. The appointment of the above two candidates in relaxation of rules cannot form the basis for appointment of Shri Zulfikar Ahmad as ASI in relaxation of rules. He has already been conferred upon a benefit to which he was not entitled under rules. Now, therefore, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 31.01.2012 passed in SWP No.957/2009 tilted Zulfikar Ahmad Wani V/s State and others and the position explained above, the claim of Shri Zulfikar Ahmad (petitioner) having been considered has been found to be devoid of any merit or justification and is accordingly rejected.” 6. The petitioner assailed the order aforesaid before this Court in SWP No.2219/2012, which came to be decided by an order dated 7th of May, 2016, in the following terms: “Respondents have not challenged the said Judgment and record of findings therein. This Court cannot have jurisdiction to upset the findings of the said Judgment. It is only an appellate Court which can upset the findings recorded and set aside the Judgment passed by the writ court. This Court cannot have jurisdiction to upset the findings of the said Judgment. It is only an appellate Court which can upset the findings recorded and set aside the Judgment passed by the writ court. Respondents are duty bound to implement the Judgment dated 31st January, 2012. True it is that the manner in which the appointments have been made are illegal cut unconstitutional but this Court cannot come out of the findings recorded in the earlier Judgment. Respondents in terms of the impugned order have failed to implement the aforesaid Court Judgment. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition along with connected MP9s) is disposed of in the following manner: The impugned Government order no. Home-759 (P) of 2012 dated 31st August, 2012, passed by respondent no.1 is set aside. Respondents are directed to implement the Court Judgment dated 31st January, 2012. The orders in this behalf be passed within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served.” 7. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the State has assailed its vires in this Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the impugned judgment and order dated 7th of May, 2016, is liable to be set aside as the writ petitioner/ respondent herein is not entitled/ eligible to the relief that has been accorded to him by the Writ Court; the judgment has been passed in hot haste without returning any finding on the validity/ legality or otherwise of the Government order; consideration has been accorded to the case of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein for his appointment against the post commensurate to his status and his case has been found devoid of any merit and has, accordingly, been rejected and that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law occupying the field and is liable to be set aside. 8. It needs must be said that by an order dated 12th of September, 2017, of this Court, the State was directed to justify and explain as to how and under what circumstances Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Manzoor Ahmad Khan were appointed on higher posts. The explanation has been tendered in the affidavit dated 9th of October, 2017, placed on record by the State, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: 5. The explanation has been tendered in the affidavit dated 9th of October, 2017, placed on record by the State, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: 5. That it is respectfully submitted that General Administration Department has made available a copy of Note submitted to the Competent Authority for consideration and approval to the appointment of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan in relaxation of rules. Factual details as gathered from the aforesaid note indicate that the father of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan was working as SI in J&K Police and retired from service in 2003. The father of the applicant had met with an accident in which he lost one of his legs rendering him almost disabled. In view of the distressed condition of the family, Director General of Police, J&K had recommended the case of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan for his appointment as ASI in J&K Police in relaxation compassionate grounds. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan possessed the educational qualification prescribed for the post of ASI, and was within the age limit but was under height by 3/4” and thus needed relaxation in height standard and recruitment rules. 6. That it is respectfully submitted that with the prior approval of the Competent Authority, the Home Department vide G.O No. Home-186(P) of 2005 dated 28.04.2005, accorded sanction to the appointment of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan as ASI in J&K Police in relaxation of height standard by ¾” and recruitment rules. 7. That it is respectfully submitted that item No. 27 of the Third Schedule appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Government Business Rules provides, that cases involving proposal in relaxation of rules shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary. It is submitted that as per the available records, case of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan has been considered and approved in terms of the aforesaid Business Rules. 8. That it is respectfully submitted that case details with regard to the appointment of Shri Nazir Ahmad Bhat are awaited from Director General of Police, J&K and General Administrative Department.” 9. Heard and considered. 10. Mr B. A. Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, states that the appointment of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein is dehores the ‘Compassionate Appointment Rules’. 11. Heard and considered. 10. Mr B. A. Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, states that the appointment of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein is dehores the ‘Compassionate Appointment Rules’. 11. Per Contra, Mr M. A. Qayoom, the learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner, has contended that the baseline of the judgment impugned in the appeal is the judgment passed in the LPA No. 180/2006 and particularly the one in SWP No. 957/2009 that directed the State to consider the case of the respondent on the same parameters as adopted in the cases of Manzoor Ahmad Khan and Nazir Ahmad Bhat and the State cannot afford to adopt and apply different yardsticks in the matter of public employment to the similarly circumstanced persons. 12. It needs must be said that by an order dated 12th of September, 2017, of this Court, the State was directed to justify and explain as to how and under what circumstances Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Manzoor Ahmad Khan were appointed on higher posts and, on that count, affidavit dated 9th of October, 2017, has been placed on record by the State, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: 5. That it is respectfully submitted that General Administration Department has made available a copy of Note submitted to the Competent Authority for consideration and approval to the appointment of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan in relaxation of rules. Factual details as gathered from the aforesaid note indicate that the father of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan was working as SI in J&K Police and retired from service in 2003. The father of the applicant had met with an accident in which he lost one of his legs rendering him almost disabled. In view of the distressed condition of the family, Director General of Police, J&K had recommended the case of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan for his appointment as ASI in J&K Police in relaxation compassionate grounds. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan possessed the educational qualification prescribed for the post of ASI, and was within the age limit but was under height by 3/4” and thus needed relaxation in height standard and recruitment rules. 6. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan possessed the educational qualification prescribed for the post of ASI, and was within the age limit but was under height by 3/4” and thus needed relaxation in height standard and recruitment rules. 6. That it is respectfully submitted that with the prior approval of the Competent Authority, the Home Department vide G.O No. Home-186(P) of 2005 dated 28.04.2005, accorded sanction to the appointment of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan as ASI in J&K Police in relaxation of height standard by ¾” and recruitment rules. 7. That it is respectfully submitted that item No. 27 of the Third Schedule appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Government Business Rules provides, that cases involving proposal in relaxation of rules shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary. It is submitted that as per the available records, case of Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan has been considered and approved in terms of the aforesaid Business Rules. 8. That it is respectfully submitted that case details with regard to the appointment of Shri Nazir Ahmad Bhat are awaited from Director General of Police, J&K and General Administrative Department.” 13. The judgment dated 7th of May, 2016, that is impugned herein this appeal, is lucid and luminous. It does not call for any interference. True it is that the respondents in the writ petition/appellants herein have not challenged the judgment dated 31st of January, 2012, passed in SWP No.957/2009, in which, the Writ Court, after scanning the entire material on record, quashed the Government order No. Home 472 (P) of 2009, dated 1st of June, 2009 and directed that the respondents/ appellants herein, while taking a decision in the matter did not, at all, take into account the orders by which relaxation was granted to other similarly situated persons. The respondents/ appellants herein completely ignored this part of the LPA Court direction. The respondents/ appellants herein completely ignored this part of the LPA Court direction. The respondents/ appellants herein were expected to explain and justify why and how Shri Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan, wards of Police officers/ officials having same qualification as that of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein were appointed as ASI in Police Department even in relaxation of eligibility criteria as regards age and height and the writ petitioner/ respondent herein, also a ward of a police officer/ official having same academic qualification to his credit, was singled out for discriminatory treatment and appointed against a lower post i.e. Wireless Operator (Constable). 14. The appellants/ respondents in the writ petition have appointed Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Manzoor Ahmad Khan in the Police Department as Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector respectively in relaxation of the rules. These two appointees are similarly circumstanced with the writ petitioner/ respondent herein. The case of the writ petitioner/ respondent herein has been treated as a ‘sui generis’ case by appointing him as a Constable. He has been discriminated invidiously. The actions of the State have to be transparent and there can be no discrimination between the persons who are similarly circumstanced. These two appointees were also the Wards of the Police officers/ officials and the case of the petitioner had to be treated and considered on the same pedestal in which their cases were considered. 15. Justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to save the individual from whatever he/ she seeks protection. Our country in particular aims at the goal of achieving the welfare State where everyone is/ has to be, as far as possible, looked after. There can be no discrimination between two individuals who are equally placed. The case of the respondent is in tune and in line with the two appointees named above and the Writ Court, after analyzing and scanning the entire record in SWP No.957/2009, came to a definite conclusion as cited hereinbefore, which could not have been bypassed by taking a different course and this order of the Writ Court has formed the baseline of the order impugned herein this appeal. 16. For all that has been said and done above, we find that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. 16. For all that has been said and done above, we find that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. It entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all connected MP(s), as a sequel to which, the order, impugned herein this appeal, is upheld. Interim directions, if any, in force as on date, shall stand vacated.