JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 65/2020 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.05.2020. Letters Patent Appeals bearing LPA Nos. 66/2020 and 67/2020 have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2020. By virtue of the judgments and orders impugned, the petitions filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) have been dismissed. 2. Since common question of law and fact are involved in all the three Appeals, we propose to dispose of the same by way of a common judgment and order. 3. The genesis of the dispute in all the three Letters Patent Appeals lies in the action of the Jammu & Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations-respondent No. 2 herein (for short BOPEE), in declaring the appellants ineligible for admission to PG courses by virtue of the impugned Notice bearing No. 19-BOPEE of 2020 dated 17.04.2020, in the light of the provisions of SRO 48 dated 30th January, 2018. 4. Since SRO 48 is the basis for declaring the appellants ineligible, it would be pertinent to reproduce the same for facility of reference and discussion: "SRO-48.--The Government hereby further amend the Jammu and Kashmir Government Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for Post graduation Degree and Diploma Courses) Procedure Order 1995, as under:-- (1) 2nd proviso to sub-clause (v) of clause 3 shall be substituted by the following:-- "provided further that the doctors who are doing post-graduation/diploma courses in any specialty at the Government expenses including those who leave the course midway after cut of date of admission shall not be eligible to apply for undergoing post-graduation courses in any other specialty in the State Medical Institutions till completion of their Post-graduation/Diploma Courses, as the case may be. In case of candidates having left the course midway after taking admission they shall be barred from seeking admission again until they would have normally completed the course had they not left it midway." 5. In the background of the above, the following are the material facts in each case: 6. LPA No. 65/2020: In this case, the appellant Showkat Ahmad joined the course of MD Radio Diagnosis/Radiology in the year 2017 in Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar. Subsequently, however, at the instance of the appellant, his admission was cancelled vide SKIMS order dated 10th of July, 2018. LPA No. 65/2020: In this case, the appellant Showkat Ahmad joined the course of MD Radio Diagnosis/Radiology in the year 2017 in Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar. Subsequently, however, at the instance of the appellant, his admission was cancelled vide SKIMS order dated 10th of July, 2018. The course, to which the appellant was admitted to in the year 2017, being a degree course, in the normal circumstances would continue for a period of three years. We are informed that those who are admitted along with the appellant would complete the course somewhere in May-June, 2020. The appellant claims that he was eligible for consideration for admission in Post Graduate degree/diploma course for the Session, 2020. 7. LPA No. 66/2020: In this case, the appellant Sabina Syed came to be selected for two years Post Graduate Diploma course in Pathology in GMC, Jammu, in the year 2018, which course, in the normal circumstances, would come to an end, in the month of May, 2020. The appellant claims that notwithstanding the fact that she had been admitted to Diploma Course which has since come to an end in May, 2020, she is eligible for admission to PG course for the Session, 2020. 8. LPA No. 67/2020: In this case, the appellant, Shafkat Rasool Wani, came to be selected for Post Graduate/MD Diploma course in Pediatrics in GMC, Jammu, in the year 2018, and after joining the course, left the same after a couple of months. Consequently, Principal/Dean, Medical College, Jammu, cancelled appellant's admission vide order dated 27th of April, 2020, on account of his absence with effect from 21.10.2018. This appellant also claims to be eligible for admission from PG/MD Diploma Course in the Session, 2020. 9. Admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses is governed by 'The Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000', framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 33 read with section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations envisaged a single eligibility-cum-entrance examination, namely, National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to Postgraduate Medical Course in each academic year. It further provides that the superintendence, direction and control of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance shall vest with National Board of Examinations under overall supervision of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. 10. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations envisaged a single eligibility-cum-entrance examination, namely, National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to Postgraduate Medical Course in each academic year. It further provides that the superintendence, direction and control of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance shall vest with National Board of Examinations under overall supervision of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. 10. National Board of Eligibility, accordingly, issued an Information Brochure dated 01.11.2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for undergoing the said test. Clause-4.8 of the Information Brochure, issued by the National Board of Eligibility is relevant and is reproduced here-under: "4.8. Some of the Universities/Institutions are having regulations that candidates who are already pursuing the PG course in their University or in another University are not eligible for admission till they complete the course. The candidates who are already pursuing PG Courses either through All India Quota or State Quota and are applying for a seat under All India Quota/State quota seats may confirm the edibility conditions of that University in this regard. NBE/MCC/MoHFW shall not be responsible if such candidates are refused for admission. Such candidates may opt for the subject and the college at their own risk and cost." 11. It appears that NEET was conducted and an overall merit list prepared. According to Clause IV of Regulation 9, an all India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the NEET. Needless to say that the admissions are to be made strictly in accordance with merit as determined in the All India merit list or the State list. 12. In tune with the aforementioned Regulation, after preparation of the merit list, with a view to make admissions to PG course in the State, the BOPEE issued a notice bearing No. 07-BOPEE of 2020 dated 6th of March, 2020, inviting applications from eligible candidates who had cleared the test from out of those who had obtained marks above the cutoff limit prescribed in the merit list. Clause-12 of the aforementioned notice prescribed as under: "12. The candidates who have left the course midway/resigned after the last date fixed by the Board in this regard shall not be eligible for consideration in pursuance of SRO 48 of 2018 dated 30-01-2018, notwithstanding their merit/having qualified the examination. Clause-12 of the aforementioned notice prescribed as under: "12. The candidates who have left the course midway/resigned after the last date fixed by the Board in this regard shall not be eligible for consideration in pursuance of SRO 48 of 2018 dated 30-01-2018, notwithstanding their merit/having qualified the examination. Such candidates are, therefore, advised not to apply for registration as it shall be treated as concealment of facts and shall make them liable to be disqualified further beyond the period prescribed under SRO 48." 13. All the three appellants, considering themselves eligible, applied and cleared the NEET conducted by the National Board of Eligibility and thereafter responded to the notice dated 6th of March, 2020 (supra) issued by the BOPEE. Notice bearing No. 19-BOPEE of 2020 dated 17.04.2020 impugned in the writ petitions filed by the appellants; 14. Respondent No. 2- BOPEE by virtue of the impugned notice, declared the appellants herein ineligible, among other candidates, on account of the fact that they either absented or resigned from the course they were admitted to in the year 2017/2018 in the case of appellants Showkat Ahmad and Shafkat Rasool and in the case of appellant Sabina Syed on the count that she was ineligible because of her pursuing PG Diploma course at GMC, Jammu. 15. The aforementioned notification issued by the BOPEE was challenged before the Writ Court, who, by virtue of the judgments and orders, impugned the present Letters Patent Appeals, dismissed the same holding the appellants ineligible for consideration in terms of SRO 48 of 2018 dated 30th January, 2018, hence the present appeals. 16. Mr. M.Y. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, questioned the legality of the judgment and orders impugned on the following grounds: (I) SRO 48 could not have been invoked to hold the appellants ineligible, inasmuch as after promulgation of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, w.e.f. 9th of August, 2019, only those laws, which were specifically made applicable through Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, and in particular Schedule 5 thereof, could be enforced. (II) Even otherwise, eligibility of the appellants was to be determined with reference to the date of admission and since the courses, to which the appellants had been admitted to, had finished in May/June, 2020, before the actual admission to PG courses, the appellants could not have been prevented from being considered for such admission. (II) Even otherwise, eligibility of the appellants was to be determined with reference to the date of admission and since the courses, to which the appellants had been admitted to, had finished in May/June, 2020, before the actual admission to PG courses, the appellants could not have been prevented from being considered for such admission. Any other interpretation would amount to wasting one more year of the appellants beyond the period of three years in the case of degree courses and two years in the case of diploma courses, which, according to the learned counsel, was never the intent or purpose of SRO 48 assuming that the same was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The Writ Court in the case of appellant Showkat Ahmad Bhat relied upon an earlier judgment rendered in "Dr. Sovia Anand Vs. BOPEE and another" bearing WP(C) No. 11/2020 and held that a candidate who would have normally completed his PG course in the month of April-May, 2020, had he not left the PG course midway, had no right to apply and seek admission for MD/MS/PG courses for the year 2020. Reliance was placed upon paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment. The Court in Dr. Sovia Anand's, in paragraph 11, had held as under: "(11). The note makes it clear that so far as State quota seats are concerned, they are required to be filled as per their qualifying/eligibility criteria of States/UTs. The petitioner as such is bound by the qualifying/eligibility criteria of the UT of Jammu & Kashmir. SRO-48 dated 30.01.2018 was in vogue when the selection process was started in the month of November, 2019 and the petitioner as such was not competent to apply in the year 2019 to seek admission for MD/MS/PG Diploma for Session 2020 so far as Medical Institutions of UT of J & K are concerned, because her course was to be completed in the month of April-May, 2020, had she not left the course midway. The petitioner was not even eligible to apply and seek admission even when the BOPEE after the declaration of the result by the NBE, asked the candidates belonging to UTs of J & K and Ladakh to keep all the relevant documents ready for registration vide Notification bearing No. 001-BOPEE of 2020 dated 25.02.2020 and also when the eligible candidates were called for online registration for preparation of Provisional Merit List vide notification No. 008-BOPEE of 2020 dated 06.03.2020 by J & K BOPEE, because her course was to be completed in the month of April-May, 2020, had she not left the course midway." 18. Relying upon paragraph 11 in Sovia Anand's case, Writ Court proceeded to hold the appellant Showkat Ahmad Bhat ineligible. It was held that petitioner had erroneously assumed eligibility in his favour even when he was clearly ineligible in terms of SRO 48. 19. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned in Dr. Showkat Bhat's case, it appears that the Writ Court proceeded on the premise that SRO 48 was in vogue on the date when the entire process was initiated in the month of November, 2019, by the National Board of Examinations. The Argument that SRO 48 had lost its efficacy by the promulgation of the Reorganization Act on 9th of August, 2019, therefore, appears to have been raised before this Court for the first time. 20. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the material available on record. 21. On a perusal of SRO-48 it can be seen that it was issued to amend the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for Post graduation Degree and Diploma Courses) Procedure Order 1995 notified vide SRO-158 dated 12.07.1995. Both SRO-158 and SRO-48 were in-fact issued in exercise of powers by the executive in terms of Section 5 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir as was applicable before the issuance of the notification bearing No. GSR 562-E dated 06.08.2019 by the President of India, whereby the provisions of Article 370 and 35-A were scrapped in the form in which they were applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Article 370 in its modified form made applicable. 22. Although SROs 158 and 48 profess themselves to be statutory orders, yet learned counsel for the respondents failed to justify their character as such. 22. Although SROs 158 and 48 profess themselves to be statutory orders, yet learned counsel for the respondents failed to justify their character as such. In order to find out whether an order has a statutory character or force, the Court has to be determine whether the same can be traced to a statutory provision. Reference in this regard can be made to 'Bishembar Dayal Chandra Mohan Vs. State of UP, AIR 1982 SC 33 '. In the present case such a connection between SRO 158, SRO 48 and the statute, is, however, conspicuously absent and thus it would be a misnomer to call the same as a statutory order. Be that as it may, it is no longer res-integra that the executive action by the State is not rendered invalid merely because there is no legislation or statutory provision to support the said action. It is settled that the executive may exercise the executive powers by issuance of administrative order, circular or instructions in the absence of any legislation or statutory provision to the contrary. If that be so, then SRO 158 and SRO 48 can be held to be executive orders issued in terms of Section 5 of the erstwhile Constitution as was then applicable in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and analogous to Article 162 of the Constitution of India. 23. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the two orders are saved in their application to the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh after the promulgation of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. In our opinion the answer lies in clause 14 of the J & K Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which envisages as under:- "(14) Anything done or any action taken including any appointment or delegation made, notification, instruction or direction issued, form, bye-law or Scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or license granted or registration effected or agreement executed under any law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Central laws now extended and applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the Central laws now extended." 24. The wording of Clause-14, clearly reflects its wide amplitude as also its clear intention to save inter alia not only the action taken but also the notification, direction or instructions issued and further mandates the same to remain in force unless superseded. In the light of the above, it is clear that SRO 158 as also SRO 48 being executive orders were not only saved but also have been mandated to remain in force in terms of Clause 14 (supra). The argument that the orders have ceased to operate after the promulgation of the J & K Reorganization Act, 2019, therefore, fails. 25. The next argument which was advanced before us was that since the course to which the appellants had been admitted to had otherwise attained completion and since the actual admission to the PG course had not been made against some of the vacancies, the appellants therefore, should be held eligible. It was also urged that any other interpretation would amount to wasting of one more year of the appellants. This argument, however, is not tenable for the simple reason that the eligibility of the appellants was not to be determined with reference to the actual date of admission in the PG course. Needless to say that the actual admission to a course is preceded by a process which, as in the present case, entailed inviting applications from candidate who possess the requisite qualification for undergoing the National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET). While the appellants, subject to other regulations permitting, may have been eligible to apply for admission to courses, based upon their merit position in the All India Merit List, outside the UTs of J & K and Ladakh, yet they were clearly ineligible to apply for admission in any of the medical institution in the UT of J & K and UT of Ladakh in terms of SRO 158 read with SRO 48 as also Clause 4.8 of the Admission Brochure issued by the National Board of Examination which conducted the NEET as also Clause 12 of the BOPEE notification, both of which have been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. In the present case, the BOPEE had issued the notification No. 07 -BOPEE of 2020 dated 06.03.2020 inviting applications from those candidates who had obtained marks above the cut-off limit as envisaged under Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. 26. In the present case, the BOPEE had issued the notification No. 07 -BOPEE of 2020 dated 06.03.2020 inviting applications from those candidates who had obtained marks above the cut-off limit as envisaged under Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. 26. In our opinion, in case the appellants were seeking admission to the institutions running PG courses in the UTs of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, then as per clause 4.8 of the Brochure issued by National Board of Examination, the appellants were not eligible at all to apply or seek admission in view of the specific prohibition contained in SRO 158 read with SRO 48 as also clause 4.8 of notification issued by National Board of Examination. 27. In any case assuming that the appellants were eligible to sit in the NEET examination conducted by the National Board of Examination, they were clearly 'ineligible to apply' in terms of Clause 12 of the Brochure issued by BOPEE on 06.03.2020, as on the date of issuance of Brochure by BOPEE, the courses to which the appellants had been admitted would have normally come to closure in the month of May-June, 2020. 28. If the argument, that the appellants be held eligible as on the actual date of admission, subject to a seat being vacant, on the date of completion of the course, were to be accepted, then not only would the entire process of admission carried on by the BOPEE be render futile, it would also make SRO 48 as also the relevant clauses of Admission Brochure issued by National Board of Eligibility and BOPEE totally redundant. In such a case, the appellants would be thrust on the BOPEE as a 'bolt from the blue', which in our opinion would be impermissible. 29. In view of the above, the appellants were clearly ineligible for admission to PG courses for the Session-2020 and were rightly declared so by virtue of the orders impugned in the writ petitions. 30. For the reasons above, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.