JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The J&K Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') has filed the present intra-court appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition. 2. The respondent No. 1/the writ petitioner had approached this court seeking quashing of the communication whereby her candidature for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science was rejected on the ground that the qualification possessed by her was not Post Graduation in Computer Science. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the School Education Department to take decision with regard to eligibility of the writ petitioner keeping in view a communication dated 14.07.2017 from the Jammu University, to the School Education Department regarding the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner. 3. Though order passed by the learned Single Judge was innocuous as no substantive rights of the parties as such had been determined by the court but still the Commission, which is merely a recruiting agency, in its wisdom decided to file appeal. The indenting department did not have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It may be noticed that formal notice in the appeal was not issued. However, Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel who was present in the court, was heard. He was earlier also assisting the court on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1. 5. The only argument sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules') prescribed that a candidate applying for the post must have post graduate qualification in the relevant subject. In the case in hand, the post is of Lecturer in Computer Science. The qualification possessed by the writ petitioner is Masters in Computer Management, hence, she was not eligible for the post. No doubt reference was made to Jammu University for seeking clarification as to whether qualification possessed by the writ petitioner can be treated as post graduation in Computer Science and the opinion expressed was that it is equivalent to the post graduation in Computer Science but still Competent Authority in the State has not taken any decision thereon. The Communication received by the Commission was merely from Public Law Officer in the School Education Department, which the Commission cannot rely upon. The Communication received by the Commission was merely from Public Law Officer in the School Education Department, which the Commission cannot rely upon. Such type of clarifications in individual cases will create confusion in future selections. Hence, the writ petitioner cannot be treated as eligible. In this process, the Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Single Judge had not expressed any opinion on the eligibility of the writ petitioner but still the Commission rushed to this Court for filing the appeal. However, since appeal has been filed, issue has been raised before this Court. Certain documents have also been produced. Instead of generating more litigation and wasting time, this Court may opine even on the eligibility of the writ petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant produced before the court two communications, one dated March 15, 2018 from the Education Department to the Commission clarifying about qualification possessed by the petitioner and a letter dated July 30, 2019 received from the Commission stating that there is not provision for equivalence of qualifications in the Rules and that similarly situated candidates were not considered by the Commission. The equivalence was required to be considered by the Competent Authority. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University Represented by its Registrar and others reported as (2014) 3 SCC 767 . The aforesaid two communications dated March 15, 2018 and duly 30, 2019 produced by learned counsel for the appellant were taken on record and marked as 'X' and 'Y', respectively. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner vehemently argued that it is a case in which ameritorious student belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category is being deprived of even her consideration for appointment even though she had secured marks much more than the minimum cut-off prescribed for the open merit and RBA category candidates in the screening test. As per the public notice, the cut off prescribed for open merit and RBA categories was 37 and the writ petitioner had secured 61 marks. The entire devise was to somehow oust the writ petitioner from consideration even though there was one seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, which was not filled and left vacant. The eligibility was considered when the candidates were allowed to appear in the screening test. The entire devise was to somehow oust the writ petitioner from consideration even though there was one seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, which was not filled and left vacant. The eligibility was considered when the candidates were allowed to appear in the screening test. It was only after the declaration of the result of the screening test that the writ petitioner was sought to be ousted. 8. He further submitted that the present appeal filed on behalf of the Commission deserves to be thrown at the very outset for the reason that it has no locus to raise the issue regarding qualification once the indenting department had communicated to the Commission that the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner was post graduation in Computer Science. There is no specific qualification prescribed in the Rules applicable for the post as the Rules merely provide that a candidate should have post graduation qualification in the relevant subject. He further submitted that the issue sought to be raised by the Commission at this stage that there may be other candidates possessing similar qualifications, who were not being considered, is totally misplaced for the reason that who so ever was aggrieved of rejection of his/her candidature could have availed of appropriate remedy at that stage. Merely because other candidates have not raised any grievance, the writ petitioner who is before this Court since 2011, cannot be deprived of her rights. In fact, the Commission had not provided any details in that regard. It is merely an argument raised again with an object to defeat the rightful claim of the writ petitioner. He further argued that though the issue raised by the Commission regarding the communication by the Public Law Officer in the School Education Department to the Commission is totally misconceived. Still subsequent thereto even the Under Secretary of the Department had communicated to the Commission its decision vide letter dated March 15, 2018. In the aforesaid letter, it was specifically mentioned that the decision has been taken on clarification from the Jammu University by the Competent Authority. Still the Commission has the guts to press this appeal. 9. It was this communication, which was produced by the respondent No. 1 before this Court and was required to be ascertained by the counsel for the Commission. Still the Commission has the guts to press this appeal. 9. It was this communication, which was produced by the respondent No. 1 before this Court and was required to be ascertained by the counsel for the Commission. In the communication, which has been produced by him in Court dated July 30, 2019 from the Commission is a misleading document for the reason that it does not refer to the earlier communication dated March 15, 2018 from the Education Department to the Commission. 10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book. 11. The case in hand is unique where the meritorious candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category is sought to be deprived of even her right of consideration for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. Indisputably, in the screening test, she secured 61 marks as against the cut off prescribed for the Open Merit and RBA category as 37. One post meant for Scheduled Tribe category was left vacant as there was no other candidate available. 12. Coming to the background of the case, the Commission vide Notification No. 6-PSC of 2008, dated 23.05.2008 advertised 630 posts of Lecturers in School Education Department in different subjects. The qualification prescribed for the post in question, i.e., Lecturer in Computer Science was Masters Degree in the relevant subject. It is not in dispute that even the Service Rules applicable for the post also do not mention any specific qualification, as it merely mentions Masters Degree in the relevant subject, the Rule being general and prescribing qualification for the posts of lecturer in different subjects. 13. The respondent No. 1/the writ petitioner got her graduation degree from Punjab University in April, 2002. Thereafter, she got her Masters Degree in Computer Management from University of Pune in 2004. In pursuance to the advertisement for the post of lecturer the writ petitioner submitted her application. She was issued Admit Card for appearance in the screening test. She secured 61 marks. As per the public notice issued by the Commission on 24.08.2011, cut off marks for appearance in interview in open merit category and RBA category was 37. However, in the column for Scheduled Tribe candidates, it was mentioned that no eligible candidate was available. The qualification of the writ petitioner was not treated as post graduation in Computer Science. As per the public notice issued by the Commission on 24.08.2011, cut off marks for appearance in interview in open merit category and RBA category was 37. However, in the column for Scheduled Tribe candidates, it was mentioned that no eligible candidate was available. The qualification of the writ petitioner was not treated as post graduation in Computer Science. The Commission rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner opining that the qualification possessed by her was not as per the requirement. She challenged the same by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the School Education Department to take final view in the matter on the basis of clarification received from Jammu University vide communication dated 14.07.2017. Though the learned Single Judge had not opined on the merits of the controversy but still the Commission challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. The communication dated 14.07.2017 from University of Jammu to the School Education Department clarified regarding the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner. The opinion expressed is as under: "The MCM course may be considered equivalent to Post Graduate course in Computer Science or Post Graduate course in Information Technology. As the relevance of MCM course is towards both Computer Science and Information Technology." 15. After the aforesaid communication was received by the School Education Department, vide communication dated 12.01.2018 the Commission was informed that the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner be treated as post graduate in Computer Science but still no action was taken. The plea sought to be raised in the present appeal is that the aforesaid communication was from the Public Law Officer, School Education Department and not the State and decision had not been taken by the Competent Authority. It is not the aforesaid decision which is under challenge. This issue could very well be sorted out by the Commission and the Indenting Department, but still the Commission thought of filing avoidable litigation. Subsequent communication, under the signatures of Under Secretary to the Government, dated 15.03.2018, as has been produced by learned counsel for the appellant in Court, even though resolved the issue, however, still despite this communication being in possession of the Commission, no action was taken thereon and present appeal was filed. Subsequent communication, under the signatures of Under Secretary to the Government, dated 15.03.2018, as has been produced by learned counsel for the appellant in Court, even though resolved the issue, however, still despite this communication being in possession of the Commission, no action was taken thereon and present appeal was filed. The aforesaid communication had taken care of the flimsy non-existent issue sought to be raised by the Commission. The contents of the aforesaid communication are extracted below: “I am directed to refer you to your letter No. PSC/Lit/249/2017, dated 20.02.2018, regarding the above-noted subject and to convey that the decision with regard to treating the PG degree (MCM) of the applicant equivalent to that of PG in Computer Science has been taken by the Competent Authority, after due consultation with the University of Jammu. Besides above, you attention is invited towards letter No. PSC/DR/School-Edu/Lect.Com Sc./2008, dated 23.09.2011 whereunder Select List for the post of Lecturer (Computer Science) was issued by the J&K Public Service Commission. It was, among other things, stated in the said communication that one post under ST category remained un-filled due to non- availability of eligible candidate and shall be re-advertised as a backlog post. The said post, as such, was not returned to the School Education Department. The case of the applicant can be considered by the Board in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court orders, against the said post if not already re-advertised as per rules." (emphasis supplied) 16. The aforesaid letter clearly mentioned that the decision to treat the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner as post graduate in Computer Science was taken by the Competent Authority after due consultation with the University of Jammu. 17. Another communication which has been produced by learned counsel for the appellant in Court from Commission to him is dated July 30, 2019, which does not even refer to the earlier letter dated 15.03.2018 clarifying the entire issue but still plea was sought to be taken that the decision was not taken by the competent authority in the Department. Nothing could be made out from the entire correspondence. Why the Commission was so adamant in the case in hand when the Indenting Department had clarified regarding the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner and directed the Commission to treat the same as post graduate qualification in Computer Science, could not be explained. Nothing could be made out from the entire correspondence. Why the Commission was so adamant in the case in hand when the Indenting Department had clarified regarding the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner and directed the Commission to treat the same as post graduate qualification in Computer Science, could not be explained. In the process, the Commission, in fact, failed to appreciate that it was merely a recruiting agency to proceed in accordance with the request and directions by the Indenting Department. 18. The issue sought to be raised regarding other candidates with similar qualifications which may have been rejected is also totally misplaced for the reason that they never raised the issue regarding rejection of their candidature. Merely on that ground, the writ petitioner who is before the Court since 2011 cannot be deprived of her rightful consideration. 19. As far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput's case (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable. In that case despite a candidate having prescribed qualification being available, a candidate having different qualification was selected. 20. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed being totally misconceived. The Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter for selection of the respondent No. 1/the writ petitioner after treating her eligible for the post. The needful shall be done within a period of two month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. To avoid any further litigation, it is further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date, she joins service, if appointed. However, if for any reason more time is required for compliance of the order, extension from the court will be required.