JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of Government Order No.158-Rev of 2016 dated 09.11.2016 issued by Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, respondent No.1 herein, whereby the case of petitioners for their appointment as Naib Tehsildar has been rejected. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Naib Tehsildar in due deference to judgment dated 11.04.2016 passed in SWP No.1809/2009 read with judgment dated 19.08.2015 in SWP No.1941/2009 along with connected matters. 2. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioners were holding basic eligibility, i.e., Graduation having passed Matriculation with Urdu as one of the subjects when the J&K Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002, whereby 52 posts of Naib Tehsildars were advertised. The petitioners along with other eligible candidates applied in pursuance to the said notice. Before the process of selection could be initiated, again 39 posts of Naib Tehsildars came to be advertised vide Notification No.09 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005 and, thereafter, 20 more posts of Naib Tehsildars came to be advertised vide Notification No.04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008. Thus, in all 111 posts of Naib Tehsildars came to be advertised with effect from 26.04.2002 to 26.05.2008. Thereafter, the candidates including the petitioners herein, who had applied in pursuance to these three advertisement notices, were subjected to written test, which was conducted in the year 2009, result whereof was declared vide notification dated 21.07.2009, in which 783 candidates were declared to have qualified the written test and were called for interview. 3. It is averred that the petitioners challenged notification dated 21.07.2009 through the medium of SWP No.1299/2009 on the ground that the Service Selection Board while declaring the result did not comply with the provisions of Rule 13(2) of SRO 194 of 1992 because the Board had fixed same merit for all the three advertisements. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2009 in SWP No.1299/2009 directed the Board to conduct the interview of petitioners. Thereafter, during the pendency of said writ petition, the Board issued the select list on 08.09.2009 in which as many as 111 candidates were selected against the post of Naib Tehsildar, but the petitioners could not be selected. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2009 in SWP No.1299/2009 directed the Board to conduct the interview of petitioners. Thereafter, during the pendency of said writ petition, the Board issued the select list on 08.09.2009 in which as many as 111 candidates were selected against the post of Naib Tehsildar, but the petitioners could not be selected. Compelled by the circumstances, the petitioners withdrew SWP No.1299/2009 and filed SWP No.1809/2009 thereby challenging the select list and sought a direction to the respondents to consider them against the said post. 4. It is averred that simultaneously various writ petitions also came to be filed by other candidates challenging the selection/appointment of Naib Tehsildars pursuant to advertisement notices issued in the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 on the ground that appointments against the post of Naib Tehsildars came to be made in relaxation of rules as most of the selected candidates were not possessing the required qualification of Matric with Urdu as one of the subjects. It is averred that this Court vide order dated 19.08.2015 disposed of all those writ petitions lead case being SWP No.1941/2009 with a direction to the official respondents therein to consider and appoint the petitioners in all the clubbed petitions on the posts of Naib Tehsildars against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the court orders in these petitions. 5. However, it is averred that subsequent to passing of judgment dated 19.08.2015, this Court vide order dated 28.09.2015 in CMP No.01/2015 (in SWP No.1918/2009) directed that SWP No.1130/2009 will not be governed by judgment dated 19.08.2015 passed in SWP No.1941/2009 and connected matters, but the petitioners in SWP No.1130/2009 shall be extended the benefit of judgment dated 31.12.2014 passed in SWP No.487/2009. 6. In SWP No.487/2009 this Court had directed the Service Selection Board to delete 23 questions, i.e., question Nos.3, 9, 31, 32, 35, 42, 47, 52, 64, 70, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 95, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113 and 115 from the question paper and thereafter assess and evaluate performance of petitioners in SWP No.487/2009 and the selected candidates as if the question papers comprised of 97 questions only. Service Selection Board thereafter shall prepare category wise merit list, redraw the select list and recommend the candidates on the basis of merit for appointment as Naib Tehsildars accordingly. 7. Service Selection Board thereafter shall prepare category wise merit list, redraw the select list and recommend the candidates on the basis of merit for appointment as Naib Tehsildars accordingly. 7. It is averred that the Government while complying judgment dated 19.08.2015, issued Government Order No.84-Rev of 2016 dated 20.06.2016, whereby as many as 20 candidates came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildars against the available posts, who had filed SWP Nos.1941/2009, 1911/2010, 1918/2009, 1193/2010, 1955/2009, 111/2010, 1820/2009, 1935/2009, 26/2010, 1967/2009, 1709/2009, 30/2010, 1418/2011, 1484/2010, 1130/2009, 1325/2009, 1720/2009, and 1934/2009. 8. Further, it is averred that judgment dated 31.12.2014 passed in SWP No.487/2009 also came to be implemented by the Government while issuing Order No.164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016, whereby as many as 07 candidates (in SWP No.487/2009) came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildars. It is averred that even one candidate, namely, Rayees Ahmad Parray, who on re-evaluation of his merit secured 0.00 points/marks also came to be appointed. 9. It is averred that SWP No.1809/2009 filed by the petitioners herein could not be clubbed with the writ petitions decided by this Court vide judgments dated 19.08.2015 and 31.12.2014 and the same remained pending till 11.04.2016 when this Court disposed of SWP No.1809/2009 on the same terms as the directions issued in paragraph-38 of SWP No.1941/2009 and other connected petitions. 10. It is averred that the respondents instead of complying with the directions passed by this Court in SWP No.1809/2009, issued Government Order No.158-Rev of 2016 dated 09.11.2016, impugned herein, by virtue of which the case of petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that they are not similarly circumstanced as that of petitioners in SWP No.1941/2009 and other connected petitions. Hence, the present petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the respondents while issuing the impugned order have projected distorted facts with respect to the prayer sought by the petitioners herein. He further contended that the case of petitioners herein is exactly similar and equal to that of those petitioners who have been appointed vide Government Orders No.164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 and No.84-Rev of 2016 dated 30.06.2016, however, the respondents in the impugned order have not been able to differentiate between these two set of writ petitioners while rejecting the case of petitioners herein. Learned counsel further contended that SRO 178 dated 03.06.2003, which prescribes the qualification for the post of Naib Tehsildar as Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects, was never implemented by the respondents and in utter breach of the said SRO selected as many as 29 candidates in 2005 and 2008 lists who were not knowing Urdu at all. 12. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents averring therein that subsequent to the selection of candidates, two types of writ petitions were filed. In 1st batch of writ petitions, the question paper set by the Service Selection Board was challenged and this Court vide judgment dated 31.12.2014 returned its findings in SWP No.487/2009. 2nd batch of writ petitions were filed against the candidates who were lacking the qualification of Urdu at matric level, but were selected and appointed. In this batch of writ petitions, this Court vide judgment dated 19.08.2015 returned its findings and directed to consider the appointment of petitioners therein against the posts reserved in these writ petitions. Further, it is averred that both the judgments were considered and implemented by the Government vide Order No.84-Rev of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 (titled Inam-ul-Haq Hajam & others vs State of J&K & others) and Order No.164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016. It is averred that the both these judgments are not in rim and no other person has a right to seek consideration pursuant to said judgments, as the same are in persona. 13. Further, it is averred that the case of petitioners herein was not similarly circumstanced with the case of petitioners in SWP No.1941/2009 decided on 19.08.2015. It is averred that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioners herein were called for interview, but despite that they failed to score the merit for selection against the post of Naib Tehsildar. Further, it is averred that all the posts advertised by the Service Selection Board stands already filled up and their remains no post unfilled against which the petitioners herein could have been considered. It is averred that the judgment rendered in SWP No.487/2009 was applicable to only those persons who had come before the Court just after holding the test by the Service Selection Board on 22.09.2009 and excluded all those persons who had participated in the selection process after the written test was conducted. It is averred that the judgment rendered in SWP No.487/2009 was applicable to only those persons who had come before the Court just after holding the test by the Service Selection Board on 22.09.2009 and excluded all those persons who had participated in the selection process after the written test was conducted. It is further averred that as per the directions of this Court, the respondents had no option but to appoint the petitioners in SWP No.487/2009. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the writ file. 15. The eligibility qualification of Naib Tehsildars, prescribed by schedule substituted by SRO 178 dated 03.06.2003 appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules,1973 (for short, Rules of 1973), is Graduation having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. 16. Admittedly, it is not disputed by the official respondents that when the petitioners had applied for the post of Naib Tehsildar, they were holding basic eligibility, i.e., Graduation having passed Matriculation with Urdu as one of the subjects; meaning thereby the petitioners herein were fully eligible to apply for the posts-in-question. 17. A perusal of paragraph-8 of judgment dated 31.12.2014 delivered in SWP No.487/2009 reveals that the respondent-State had admitted that as many as 29 candidates out of total selected candidates had not passed Urdu as one of the subjects in Matriculation; meaning thereby these 29 candidates were not holding basic eligibility qualification/conditions when they had applied for the post of Naib Tehsildar pursuant to Notification No.09 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005 and Notification No.04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008. Once these 29 candidates were not fulfilling the basic eligibility conditions/qualification to apply for the posts-in-question, then their application forms ought not to have been entertained, rather rejected at the very outset. Even during scrutiny, the application forms of these 29 candidates could have been rejected by the competent authority. However, instead of rejecting their forms, they were allowed to participate in the selection process. Once, despite being ineligible to even apply for the posts in question, they were allowed to submit their application forms and compete with other eligible candidates, a conclusion itself is drawn that the official respondents intended to select and appoint them as Naib Tehsildars even before the selection process reaches to its logical conclusion. 18. Once, despite being ineligible to even apply for the posts in question, they were allowed to submit their application forms and compete with other eligible candidates, a conclusion itself is drawn that the official respondents intended to select and appoint them as Naib Tehsildars even before the selection process reaches to its logical conclusion. 18. My this view further get strengthened when a perusal of paragraph-8 of the judgment in SWP No.487/2009 also reveals that before appointing these 29 candidates as Naib Tehsildars vide Order No.FC(A) 66 of 2010 dated 10.04.2010, the Administrative Department vide letter No.Rev-NGN/118/09 dated 02.03.2010 granted relaxation in their favour; meaning thereby the selection agency had clubbed ineligible candidates with eligible candidates and ultimately selected these 29 ineligible candidates, leaving the eligible candidates, petitioners herein, high and dry despite being fully eligible in terms of the rules, thus violated their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and rendered the selection process illegal. This factual position, as admitted by the respondents themselves, leads to the conclusion that the respondents at the very outset intended to accommodate these 29 ineligible candidates under the garb of selection process, which, it seems was nothing, but an eye wash to appoint these ineligible candidates as Naib Tehsildars. 19. It would be relevant to reproduce hereunder paragraph-8 of judgment dated 31.12.2014 delivered in SWP No.487/2009, whereby, while allowing the writ petition, respondent Board was directed to delete 23 questions out of 120 questions from the question paper of same selection process and thereafter assess and evaluate the performance of petitioners therein: “8. Respondent No.1, in its reply, did not take a stand as regards questions labeled as wrong/vague or with wrong answers or multiple correct answers in the petition. It was, however, pleaded that 29 out of 110 selected candidates had not passed Urdu as one of subjects in Matriculation, and were appointed as Naib Tehsildars vide Order No.FC(A) 66 of 2010 dated 10th April 2010, after Administrative Department vide letter no.Rev-NGN/118/09 dated 2nd March 2010, granted relaxation in their favour.” 20. It would also be relevant to reproduce hereunder paragraph-10 of judgment dated 19.08.2015 delivered in SWP No.1941/2009 and connected matters, whereby, while allowing the writ petitions, it was directed to appoint the petitioners therein of same selection process on the posts of Naib Tehsildars: “10. It would also be relevant to reproduce hereunder paragraph-10 of judgment dated 19.08.2015 delivered in SWP No.1941/2009 and connected matters, whereby, while allowing the writ petitions, it was directed to appoint the petitioners therein of same selection process on the posts of Naib Tehsildars: “10. On notice issued, the State-respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that the appointments of the private respondents were made in relaxation of the rules. It is admitted by the State-respondents that for being eligible for being selected on the post of Naib Tehsildar, the candidate was required to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects.” 21. Thus, it is admitted by the respondent-State on affidavit that for being eligible to be selected on the post of Naib Tehsildar, every candidate was required to have passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. It was also admitted by the respondent-State that the appointments of these 29 candidates were made in relaxation of rules. 22. Now what is to be seen here is that the basic recruitment rules of eligibility was relaxed by the respondents for these 29 ineligible candidates, that too after the conclusion of selection process, which was otherwise impermissible and unsustainable in law; meaning thereby the whole selection process in breach of statutory recruitment rules was vitiated in the eyes of law. 23. In the given circumstances, this Court disposed of SWP No.1809/2009 on 11.04.2016 filed by the petitioners herein on the same terms, as the directions issued in paragraph-38 of SWP No.1941/2009 and other connected petitions. 24. Therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder paragraph-38 of the judgment delivered in SWP No.1941/2009: “38. The official respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Naib Tehsildar against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the Court orders in these writ petitions. The appointment orders in this behalf be issued within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. In case of those of the petitioners who might have crossed the upper age limit for entering into Government services, it shall be deemed that relaxation is granted in the upper age limit. The petitioners in this fact situation shall be given all the service benefits including the seniority from the date the private respondents have been appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars. The petitioners in this fact situation shall be given all the service benefits including the seniority from the date the private respondents have been appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars. The petitioners, however, will not be entitled to any monetary benefit for the period between appointment of private respondents and till the date of their appointments. Besides this, the petitioners in SWP Nos.1941/2009, 1820/2009 and 1709/2009 shall also be extended the benefit of judgment dated 31.12.2014 passed in SWP No.487/2009.” 25. Therefore, in terms of disposal of SWP No.1809/2009, the respondents were bound to appoint the petitioners herein against the posts of Naib Tehsildar, that too when 29 ineligible candidates came to be appointed as such by the respondents leaving the petitioners herein despite being fully eligible as per SRO 178 dated 03.06.2003 appended to Rules of 1973. However, the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department instead of appointing the petitioners herein as Naib Tehsildars in terms of the directions passed in SWP No.1809/2009, rejected their case vide Order No.158-Rev of 2016 dated 09.11.2016 solely on the ground that the case of petitioners herein is not similarly situated/circumstanced with the case of petitioners in the batch of writ petitions with lead case SWP No.1941/2009, as the petitioners herein had challenged the whole select list. 26. It is to be seen here that at prayer No.iv of SWP No.1809/2009, the petitioners herein had sought a direction to the respondents to adhere to the provisions of notifications inviting applications to the post of Naib Tehsildars; meaning thereby the petitioners herein had sought a direction to the respondents to govern the selection by schedule substituted vide SRO 178 dated 03.06.2003 appended to the Rules of 1973, i.e., the same prayer which the petitioners in SWP No.1941/2009 had sought in prayer part (v) of their writ petition. Further, even if the petitioners herein had challenged the whole select list that does not mean that they did not challenge the selection of these 29 ineligible candidates. Otherwise too, it is the admitted stand of respondents that 29 selected candidates did not fulfill the required qualification/eligibility conditions. Had the respondents not allowed these 29 ineligible selected candidates to apply and participate in the selection process, there might be every chance of petitioners herein getting selected for the post of Naib Tehsildars in the said selection process. Otherwise too, it is the admitted stand of respondents that 29 selected candidates did not fulfill the required qualification/eligibility conditions. Had the respondents not allowed these 29 ineligible selected candidates to apply and participate in the selection process, there might be every chance of petitioners herein getting selected for the post of Naib Tehsildars in the said selection process. The fault, therefore, lies on the respondents, for which the petitioners herein cannot be made to suffer any longer and make scape goats so as to accommodate 29 ineligible candidates against the posts of Naib Tehsildars that too at the cost of eligible candidates, petitioners herein. 27. The respondents while rejecting the case of petitioners herein have also stated that the petitioners herein in SWP No.1809/2009 had prayed for redrawing the merit. In my view there was nothing wrong in making such a prayer because it is a fact that out of total 120 questions, 23 questions were either wrong or vague. And, that is why, a coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing SWP No.487/2009 (supra) on 31.12.2014, had directed to delete 23 wrong/vague questions and, thereafter, redraw the select list. 28. Further, it is not the stand of respondents that the case of petitioners herein is not exactly similar and equal to that of those petitioners who have been appointed vide Government Orders No.164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 and No.84-Rev of 2016 dated 30.06.2016, nor the respondents have been able to differentiate between these two set of writ petitioners while rejecting the case of petitioners herein. Also, it is not the case of respondents that only after the decisions in SWP Nos.1941/2009 and 487/2009, the petitioners herein have for the first time filed the writ petition challenging the selection-in-question. The Government/respondents also cannot be allowed to be selective in implementing the Court orders. Respondents have also not denied in their objections nor during arguments that one Rayees Ahmad Parray, who on re-evaluation of his merit secured 0.00 points/marks, also came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar, as alleged by the petitioners in their writ petition. Thus, from every angle, it seems that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately rejected the case of petitioners on flimsy and clumsy grounds, having no legal basis/sanctity thereby willfully disobeying the directions passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in SWP No.1809/2009. 29. Thus, from every angle, it seems that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately rejected the case of petitioners on flimsy and clumsy grounds, having no legal basis/sanctity thereby willfully disobeying the directions passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in SWP No.1809/2009. 29. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider and issue appointment orders in favour of petitioners selecting/appointing them as Naib Tehsildars and shall be given all the service benefits including seniority from the date other similarly situated candidates have been selected and appointed as Naib Tehsildars. In case of those of the petitioners who might have crossed the upper age limit for entering into Government services, it shall be deemed that relaxation is granted in the upper age limit. It is further directed that in the seniority the petitioners herein be placed over and above the 29 selected ineligible candidates, who were appointed by relaxation of rules that too after the end of selection process. However, it is made clear that although the petitioners herein shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority etc., however, they will not be entitled to any monetary benefit for the period between appointment of selected candidates pursuant to the notifications-in-question and till the date of appointments of petitioners herein. If as on today there are no posts of Naib Tehsildars available, respondents are directed to create supernumerary posts for the petitioners. Let the relevant orders be issued within a period of eight weeks from today. It is made clear that if the respondents fail to appoint the petitioners against the post of Naib Tehsildars within a period of eight weeks from today, the selection of 29 ineligible candidates shall stand quashed forthwith and, thereafter, they shall not be disbursed with their salaries etc. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any pending, accordingly, stands disposed of.