Judgment 1. The short question involved in this petition is about the interpretation of the qualification prescribed in terms of Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2007 dated 31.12.2007 issued by Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board in terms of which amongst other posts, posts of Draftsmen (Civil) (Backlog) were required to be filled and qualification prescribed by the SSRB had been laid down as under: 92. Draftsmen Civil (Backlog) PWD Div. Kashmir RBA 23 ALC 5 02 years diploma in drafting course in any government recognized institute Note: HC-1 (Horizontal) partially deaf, orthoped Defect of one leg or eligible. 2. This petition had been filed in the year 2011 and following reliefs have been sought: i) By issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order bearing No. SBOTE/Verification/2011/1412 dated 18.01.2011 and Order No. 101-SSB of 2011 dated 08.06.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 and 3 be quashed; and ii) By issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents be directed to select and appoint the petitioners against the post of Draftsman (Civil) advertised vide Notification dated 31.12.2007 under RBA Category available with them. Till that it so done, not to issue order of appointment in favour of any selected candidate. iii) The respondents be also directed not to re-advertise the post of Draftsman (Civil) advertised vide notification dated 31.12.2007 but to select and appoint the petitioners and other candidates against the vacancies available with them on the basis of their over all performance in the interview. 3. For appreciating the merits of the contention raised by the parties, it would be quite fruitful to give a narration of the facts of the case (as are set forth in petition): i) That the petitioner No. 1 is a resident of village Chedipora Shopian which has been declared as a Backward area by the government. The petitioner No. 1 has accordingly obtained a Backward Area Certificate from the Authorized Officer. That the petitioner N. 1 has passed Secondary School Examination in 2001 and Higher Secondary Part II Examination in 2003.The petitioner No. 2 is also a resident of village Damhal Hanjipora Tehsil and District Kulgam which has been declared as backward area. He has also been granted certificate by the authorized officer to the said effect. That the petitioner N. 1 has passed Secondary School Examination in 2001 and Higher Secondary Part II Examination in 2003.The petitioner No. 2 is also a resident of village Damhal Hanjipora Tehsil and District Kulgam which has been declared as backward area. He has also been granted certificate by the authorized officer to the said effect. The petitioner No. 2 has also passed secondary school examination and higher secondary part two examination from the J&K State Board of School Education in the year 1996 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner no. 3 is also resident of village Chiimmer Damhal Hanjipora District Kulgam which has been declared as a Backward area certificate from the authorized officer. The petitioner No. 3 has passed Secondary School Examination in 2005 from J&K State Board of School Education. The petitioner NO. 4 is a resident of village Kiloora Malikgund, Shopian which has been declared as a Backward area. The petitioner NO. 4 accordingly obtained a Backward area certificate from the authorized officer. The petitioner No. 4 has passed secondary school examination and higher secondary part two examination from the J&K State Board of School Education in 2002 and 2004 respectively. The petitioner No. 5 is also a resident of village Qusba Khull District Kulgam. The said village having been declared a backward area, therefore he also obtained backward area certificate from the authorized officer to the said effect. The petitioner No. 5 has also passed Secondary School Examination and higher secondary part two examination from the J&K State Board of School Education in the year 1998 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner No. 6 is also a resident of village Chimmer Tehsil and District Kulgam which is a backward area declared by the government. He also obtained backward area certificate from the competent authority to the said effect. The petitioner No. 6 has also passed Secondary School Examination from the J&K State Board of School Education. He has also passed higher secondary part two examination from the said Board in the year 2002. ii) That the petitioners after having completed two years course of training and passing the prescribed trade test in the trade of Draftsmen (Civil) in July 2007 from the Kissan Institute of Technology, Industrial Training Institute (Regd.) R. S. Pora Jammu, they were awarded Diploma Certificate by the said institution. ii) That the petitioners after having completed two years course of training and passing the prescribed trade test in the trade of Draftsmen (Civil) in July 2007 from the Kissan Institute of Technology, Industrial Training Institute (Regd.) R. S. Pora Jammu, they were awarded Diploma Certificate by the said institution. The said institute is registered by the government of J&K and Central Government and is also affiliated with NCVT, Government of India, New Delhi. In support of their contention, petitioners also annex herewith a copy of circular dated 07.08.2009 issued by the Director Technician Education and published in a daily news paper, whereby t ha been notified for the information of general public that the Kissan institute of Technology, R.S.pora Jammu has been affiliated/recognized for imparting training in various trades including Draftsman Civil. iii) That in terms of advertisement notice of 05 of 2007 dated 31.12.2007, application were invited by respondent No. 2 besides other posts, for the post of Draftsman Civil (Backlog) lying vacant in the Public Works Department. The break up of the posts and the qualification prescribed was indicated in the said advertisement notice as under: Draftsmen Civil (Backlog) PWD Div. Kashmir RBA 23 ALC 5 02 years diploma in drafting course in any government recognized institute Note: HC-1 (Horizontal) partially deaf, orthoped Defect of one leg or eligible. iv) That the petitioners being fully eligible and also Resident of Backward Areas, also responded to the advertisement notice dated 31.12.2007 along with other candidates, within the period stipulated thereon. The petitioners also annexed all the relevant certificates wit h their application forms. Their application/ns were duly received by the respondents against proper receipt. v) That after receipt of the applications forms from the petitioners and others, the respondents short listed only 18 candidates for post 23 posts of Draftsman reserved or candidates belonging to Backward area, which also included petitioners. vi) That accordingly in terms of notification dated 15.12.2008, the petitioners were called for interview to be held on 22.12.2008. the petitioners appeared in the interview and fared well, they accordingly expected their selection and appointment against the post of Draftsmen on the basis of their performance in the interview coupled with the fact that the number of candidates called for interview was les than the number of posts advertised. the petitioners appeared in the interview and fared well, they accordingly expected their selection and appointment against the post of Draftsmen on the basis of their performance in the interview coupled with the fact that the number of candidates called for interview was les than the number of posts advertised. vii) That the respondent No. 2 however in terms of Notification published in Daily Rising Kashmir in its issue of 27.04.2010 issued provisional select list of the candidates for the post of Draftsman Civil, Divisional Cadre Kashmir, wherein only one candidate that too from District Reasi of Jammu Province3 was shown to have been selected as against 213 posts of Draftsman advertised. viii) That on coming to know about the provisional selection list, the petitioners approached the respondent No. 2 by way of a representation and enquired from him as to why they were not selected for the post Draftsman Civil despite being fully eligible and qualified for the said post. The respondent No. 2 on receipt of the representation dated 29.04.2010 from the petitioners informed them that they were not bound to appoint them despite the posts being available with them. ix) That feeling aggrieved of the acti8on of respondents, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 951/2010 before the Hon’ble court, for grant of the following relief “In the premises, it is therefore, prayed that: a) By issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents be directed to select and appoint the petitioners against the post of Draftsman (Civil) advertised vide Notification dated 31.12.2007 under RBA category available with them. b) Till that it is done, not to issue order of appointment in favour of any selected candidates. c) The respondents be also directed not to re-advertise the post of Draftsmen (Civil) advertised vide notification dated 31.12.2007 but to select and appoint the petitioners and other candidates against the vacancies available with them on the basis of their overall performance in the interview.” Along with the writ petition, the petitioners also filed an application for grant of interim relief. x) That on 24.12.2010, when the writ petition came up for consideration before the Court at the admission stage, it was pleased not only to admit the same, but also disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: “……..in view of these facts, I find the petition cane be and is disposed of at t his very stage without objections from the other side with the direction to the Service Selection Board to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of certificates issued by the Director Technical Education and pass appropriate orders.; if the petitioners fulfill the requisite qualification/eligibility they be selected/appointed against the posts available.” xi) That since in the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 the writ court had directed that the cased of the petitioners be considered on the basis of certificates issued by the Director Technical Education, when it should have been that the case of the petitioners be considered on the basis of the certificate issued by the recognized institution, duly recognized by the Director Technical Education. Thus there were error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the petitioners’ sought review of the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 by filing review petition NO. 03/2011. The said review petition was allowed by the court in terms of order dated 10.2.2011 by providing that case of the petitioners be considered on the basis of the certificates issued by the concerned institution which is duly recognized by Director Technical education. xii) That the order dated 10.02.2011 passed in the review petition was also served on the respondents, but despite service of the said order, they failed to implement the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 read with order dated 10.02.2011 passed in the review petition and in letter and spirit which forced the petitioners to file contempt petition No. 193/2011 before the court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents-contemnors and for getting the orders of the court implemented by any coercive method, which the court may deem fit and proper under4 the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said contempt petition, the respondents-contemnors cause their appearance and submitted compliance report/statement of facts, in which they have admitted that SSB took up the matter with Director Technical Educastion who in unequivocal terms informed the SSRB that four traders of Kissan Institute of Technology including Draftsman (Civil) are affiliated with the National Council of Vocational Trainings. It is also stated that the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education, J&K Jammu informed the SSRB that the certificate of the petitioners are not genuine, therefore on the said information of the Secretary State Board of Technical Education the respondents- contemnors rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they did not fulfill the requisite condition of eligibility for the post of Draftsman (Civil). The respondents had also enclosed a copy of the consideration order dated 08.06.2011 with the compliance report. xiii) That on coming to know about the consideration order dated 08.06.2011 which was annexed by the respondents with the compliance report, the petitioners filed one more petition before the court bearing SWP No. 1708/2011 challenging the said consideration order dated 08.06.2011 on the ground available to them. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners also filed an application for grant of interim relief. xiv) That on 2308.2011, when the writ petition along with application for interim relief came up for consideration before the court, it was pleased to dismiss the SWP No. 1708/2011 in the following terms: “..................in absence of any challenge to the communication dated 18.01.2011 relatable to the genuineness of certificates of the petitioner t his petition cannot be entertained, as such, is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioners, if they so choose, to have recourse to permissible remedial measures.” xv) That since the petitioners were neither served with the communication dated 18.1.2011 nor was same furnished to them along with the compliance report, therefore, petitioners went to the office of SSRB and after great persuasion, the SSRB officials furnished them a photstate copy of the communication dated 18.1.2011. 4. Aggrieved with the orders dated 18.1.2011 and 08.06.2011 the petitioners have challenged the same on the following grounds: i) That the order impugned dated 18.01.2011 and 08.06.2011 have been issued by the respondents in a most arbitrary and capricious manner, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 4. Aggrieved with the orders dated 18.1.2011 and 08.06.2011 the petitioners have challenged the same on the following grounds: i) That the order impugned dated 18.01.2011 and 08.06.2011 have been issued by the respondents in a most arbitrary and capricious manner, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. ii) That it was vide circular dated 07.08.2009 issued by the respondent No. 4 for the information of the general public that he industrial training center (ITC) namely Kissan Institute of Technology R. S. Pora Jammu has been shown to have been affiliated/recognized for imparting training in the below mentioned trades only • Stenography (English),. • Secretarial Practice, • Draftsman Civil and Draftsman Mechanical. It has also been mentioned in the notice that the certificates issued in favour of the trainees who have undergone training in the above mentioned affiliated trades may be considered only after getting the same verified from the Directorate of Technical Education./ During the course of selection process undertaken by the respondent No. 2, it was obligatory on him to get the certificates of the petitioners verified from the respondent NO. 4 envisages in the circular dated 07.8.2009. instead of doing so, the respondent No. 3 addressed the impugned communication dated 18.1.2011 to the respondent NO. 2 stating therein that the photostate copies of the certificates of the petitioners are not genuine, hence returned back without verification. The respondent NO. 2 was legally bound to get the said certificates verified from the respondent No. 4 as is provided in the circular dated 07.8.2009 issued by the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 who is subordinate to respondent NO. 4 having not done so and on the contrary he having issued the impugned communication dated 18.1.2011 and the consideration order dated 8.6.2011 whimsically and capriciously. iii) That Kissan Institute of Technology R. S. Pora where from the petitioners have passed the said diploma is also registered with the Directorate of Technical Education, J&K. The said institute has also been approved by the Regional Director, Apprenticeship Training Faridabad as a VTP under the Skill Development Initiative Scheme in the J&K State. In that view of the matter, the certificates issued by the said institute are genuine. In that view of the matter, the certificates issued by the said institute are genuine. It may be submitted here that in the past most of the candidates who have undergone their diploma/trade test through the KIT Industrial Training Institute, have been selected/appointed in various departments of the Government Viz, Agriculture Production Department, PW (R&B) Department, PHE, Irrigation and FC Department and PDD. Those candidates were selected after getting their certificates from the said Industrial Training Institute under the directions of the respondent NO. 4. The respondents were thus obliged under law to get the certificates of the petitioners also verified from the KIT institute. However instead of doing so, the respondent NO. 2 and 3 without any power, authority or competence have unilaterally held that the certificates of the petitioners are not genuine, therefore they are not eligible for selection and appointment. iv) That during the year 2010, some candidates in Jammu Division were also selected and appointed as Draftsman (Civil) by the SSRB. After their appointment, they submitted their testimonial before the officers with whom, they were posted. Accordingly Executive Engineer PHE Division Poonch addressed a communication dated 26.2/2010 to the respondent No. 3 requesting him to get the Diploma Certificate issued by the Principal, KIT Industrial Training institute, R. S. Pora in favour of one Kuldeep Singh verified from the concerned. The respondent NO. 3 in response to the said letter informed the Executive Engineer concerned in terms of his communication dated 15.4.2010 that the Diploma certificate of Shri Kuldeep Singh has been issued by the Principal KIT Institute R. S. Pora therefore the same may please be got verified from the concerned institute. In the said case, the respondent No. 3 has not said that the certificates has been issued by the KIT Institute hence not genuine. This double standard adopted by the respondent No. 3 in the same set of candidates is discriminatory and is not permitted by law. Like wise Executive Engineer, PHE Division Rajouri in terms of his communication dated 08.09.2010 forwarded six certificates of the candidates who came to be appointed as Draftsman Civil in his department to the respondent NO. This double standard adopted by the respondent No. 3 in the same set of candidates is discriminatory and is not permitted by law. Like wise Executive Engineer, PHE Division Rajouri in terms of his communication dated 08.09.2010 forwarded six certificates of the candidates who came to be appointed as Draftsman Civil in his department to the respondent NO. 3 2ho in turn forwarded the same back to the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Rajouri vide his letter dated 23.11.2010 with the remark that the certificates could not be verified from the Board because the same had been issued by the Kissan institute of Technology, R. S. Pora and the same may be verified from the concerned institute. On receiving the said communication, the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Rajouri got the certificates verified from the Principal KIT, R. S Pora where after those six candidates have been appointed. In the said case, also the respondent NO. 3 has not stated that the certificates issued by the KIT R. S. Pora are not genuine. It is only in the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 has adopted discriminatory approach with the sole aim of depriving them of their chances of appointment. The petitioners also annexed her with communications dated 5.10.2007 addressed by respondent NO. 4 to the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Doda and dated 25.10.2007 to t he Principal KIT. For getting of 22 candidates verified where after all of them came to be appointed as Draftsman. The sort of approach adopted by the respondent NO. 3 in Jammu Division and the one adopted in Kashmir Division Speaks volumes. The impugned communications issued by the respondents NO. 2 and 3 being thus discriminatory deserve to be quashed. 5. For getting of 22 candidates verified where after all of them came to be appointed as Draftsman. The sort of approach adopted by the respondent NO. 3 in Jammu Division and the one adopted in Kashmir Division Speaks volumes. The impugned communications issued by the respondents NO. 2 and 3 being thus discriminatory deserve to be quashed. 5. Petitioners have also filed supplementary Affidavit wherein they have stated that : i) That during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have been able to lay their hands on a communication/certificates issued by the Principal, Kissan institute of Technology, Industrial Training Institute, R. S. Pora, Jammu under No. KIT/Veri/3364/11 dated 02.09.2011 has categorically stated that the Director Technical Education in terms of his letter dated 25.08.2010 has already communicated that the Kissan Institute of Technology is recognized Government of India and that the institution has been authorized to conduct the Vocational Training in the course of Draftsman (Civil) and others as mentioned in the said letter, it has also been stated in the said certificate that 02.09.2011 that the institute is registered by the J&K Government Vide No. 168-S/93 dated 27.04.1993 for implementation of the Central Sponsored Schemes under CTS for conducting Vocational Trainings in number of trades including Draftsman (Civil) which are approved by the Directorate of Technical Education J&K/Ministry of labour and Employment DGE&T Government of India and other Ministries/Departments. The certificate also indicates that the diploma certificates issued by the Kissan Industrial Training institute that the diploma certificates issued by the Kissan Industrial; Training Institute under various schemes sponsored by the Government of India are recgonized for purpose of recruitment in different central government departments and state governments. It is also stated in view of the above facts and circumstances candidates who have undergone Diploma course in Kissan Institute of Technology R. S., Pora Jammu have been selected/appointed in different departments of the government of J&K Viz. Agriculture and Production Department, PW (R&B) Department, PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control Department and PDD. It is also stated in view of the above facts and circumstances candidates who have undergone Diploma course in Kissan Institute of Technology R. S., Pora Jammu have been selected/appointed in different departments of the government of J&K Viz. Agriculture and Production Department, PW (R&B) Department, PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control Department and PDD. The certificates further indicates that the departments in which candidates having passed thier diploma/vocational training courses through the Kissan Institute of Technology, Jammu got the certificatges of those candidates verified from the KIT institute as per directions of the Directorate Technical Education and Secretary State Board of Technical Education, J&K. it is further stated that this court in terms of its order dated 10.2.2011 has held that the certificates issued by the concerned institute in favour of the candidates/petitioners of SWP No. 051/2010 in which order dated 10.02.2011 came to be passed is duly recognized by the Directorate of Technical Education. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making reference of the facts contended that the respondents have observed in breach, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment to the post of Draftsman (Civil). The Qualification required was as: 02 years diploma in drafting course in any government recognized institute Note: HC-1 (Horizontal) partially deaf, orthoped Defect of one leg or eligible. The eligibility criteria was satisfied by the petitioners. The Institute in which they had undergone Diploma course in Engineering was recognized. 23 vacancies were required to be filled for Kashmir Division from RBA Category and in the list of the shortlisted candidates which was issued on 15.12.2008, the petitioners were shown at serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 16 having been found eligible for interview and date of interview was fixed. It is clear that only 18 candidates were shortlisted for being interviewed in terms of the said Notification and one post was recommended to be filled up by preparing the name of one candidate who hails from Jammu Division namely Joginder Singh. 7. It is being further submitted that in the Compliance report/statement of facts submitted on behalf of Board in contempt petition NO. 193/2011 (SWP NO 951/2010) following facts have been reiterated as: “Nine (9) candidates including petitioners failing under RBA Category who had obtained their Diplomas in Draftsman Course from Kissan Institute of Technology R. S. Pura Jammu, participated in the selection process. 193/2011 (SWP NO 951/2010) following facts have been reiterated as: “Nine (9) candidates including petitioners failing under RBA Category who had obtained their Diplomas in Draftsman Course from Kissan Institute of Technology R. S. Pura Jammu, participated in the selection process. The SSB however took up the matter with the Technical Education Department and Secretary State Board of Technical Education J&K Jammu with respect to the recognition/authencity of Diploma courses and genuine of Diploma Certificates of the petitioners. In response though the Director, Technical; Education informed that four trades of Kissan Institute of Technology including Draftsman (Civil) are affiliated with the National Council of Vocational Training, but Secretary State Board of Technical Education, J&K Jammu informed that the certificates of petitioner are not genuine. Therefore as the certificates of petitioners are not genuine as informed by the Secretary State Board of Technical Education J&K Jammu they obviously do not fulfill the requisite condition of eligibility for the post of Draftsman (Civil). The reply transmitted by the Secretary State Board of Technical Education vide communication NO. SBOTE/Verification/2011/1412 dated 18.01.2001 as noted above is apparently creptic as can be seen from its text: “Regarding the subject cited above, the certificates forwarded to this office for verification vide your NO. SSB/Sel/Secy/10/3207 dated 28.12.2010 (copy enclosed with phostate copies of certificates)are not genuine, hence are returned back without verification.” 8. It is contended further that in case the certificates were not genuine what were the reasons on which same was opined have been not been spelt out. It is being conceded that the verification was not made by the Board with regard to the genuineness of the same and so the opinion ought not to have been casually framed and forwarded. He has also referred of the Circular issued by the Director Technical Education vide dated 07.08.2009 wherein it is being stated that the Kisan Institute RS PORA has been affiliated/recognized of imparting below mentioned trades :- • Stenography (English) • Secretarial Practice • Draftsman Civil • Draftsman Mechanical 9. He has also referred of the Circular issued by the Director Technical Education vide dated 07.08.2009 wherein it is being stated that the Kisan Institute RS PORA has been affiliated/recognized of imparting below mentioned trades :- • Stenography (English) • Secretarial Practice • Draftsman Civil • Draftsman Mechanical 9. Malice on part of the Secretary, Technical Board of Education in dealing with the petitioners according to him can be seen from perusal of the communication dated 15.04.2010 in terms of which with regard to the one candidate Kuldeep Singh, the Executive Engineer PHE Division Poonch has been asked to verify it from the Institute issuing the certificate i.e. Kisan Institute of Technology RS PORA, Jammu and Executive Engineer PHE Rajouri having been convened similarly viz-a-viz other selectees by advising him that the certificates issued by the Kisan Technology be verified from the said institute. Executive Engineer PHE Division Doda has also got certain certificates verified from the Principal Training Kissan Institute of Technology RS Pora as per the communication dated 25.10.2007. These are some additional points raised on behalf of petitioner by learned counsel. 10. Mr. Mir Suhail learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 submitted that the Board has proceeded in the matter as per the communication received from Secretary Board of Technical Education and no malafides can be attributed to the Board. 11. Mr. Asif, learned Dy. AG appearing vice Mr. Sajjad, learned GA on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 4 submitted that the proper action has been taken by official respondents in the mater. 12. Considered the rival arguments. 13. I have gone through material. On consideration of the same, it is evident that the communication issued by Secretary Technical Education respondent No. 3 vide No. SBOTE/Verification/2011/1412 dated 18.01.2011 conveying to Secretary, Service Selection Board that the certificates issued in favour of the petitioners herein are not genuine has been made casually. In fairness respondent No. 3 was expected to make the action taken pursuant to the communication intelligible. In fairness respondent No. 3 was expected to make the action taken pursuant to the communication intelligible. There is thus force in the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the certificates had not been verified, genuineness ought not to have been doubted or else if certificates have to be got verified from the Principal Kisan Institute of Technology, R. S. Pora (Jammu) then letter received from the Board ought to have been replied accordingly and as had been done in the similar cases noted above. Director Technical Education respondent No. 4 in terms of Circular dated 07.08.2009 noted above has clarified the above position by stating that the Kissan Institute of Technology, R. S. Pora Jammu is having competence to impart training viz-a-viz certain trades including trades referred hereinabove. Persons possessing similar certificates have been allowed to be appointed and the petitioners discriminated without any legal basis. Communication bearing No. SBOTE/Verification/21011/1412 dated 18.1.2011 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the Order bearing No. 101-SSB of 2011 dated 08.06.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2 are thus militative of the rights of the petitioners. Kisan Institute of Technology R. S. Pora is registered by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central Government and is also affiliated in NCBT Government of India New Delhi. It stands corroborated by notification issued by respondent No. 4 as noted above. 14. Viewing the matter from the above conceptus, I am of the opinion petitioners have been able to make out a case for grant of relief and accordingly writ petition is disposed of by granting following reliefs: i) By issuance of writ of certiorari, the impugned Communication bearing No. SBOTE/Verification /21011/1412 dated 18.1.2011 issued by respondent No.3 and Order No. 101-SSB of 2011 dated 08.06.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 are quashed. ii) By writ of mandamus respondents are directed to make further follow up in pursuance to the shortlisting of the candidates made for filing of posts of Draftsman, Category RBA and to treat the trade certificates issued by Kissan Institute of Technology R. S. Pora Jammu as ‘genuine’ for filing up of the post of Draftsman Civil. Respondents are further directed to prepare the selection list and to make appointment accordingly of all the petitioners for the posts for which they had applied. 15. Disposed of as above.