JUDGMENT : N.KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 16.04.2016 passed in SWP No. 1156 of 2011, SWP No. 215 of 2012, and Contempt (SWP) No. 215 of 2012 and connected applications. 2. The issue involved is as to whether the appointment in Udhampur District of the appellants who are not residents of Udhampur District, when candidates were available from Udhampur District, contrary to the terms of the advertisement stipulating that appointment can be made of candidates who are residents of the district is illegal, and the attending issue that, if it is illegal, whether by of afflux of time, the appointment of the appellants can be saved? 3. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for the purpose of consideration of this appeal, as can be culled from the pleadings may be stated herein below. An Advertisement was issued in 2008 under No. 06 of 2008 by the J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB for short) for appointment to a number of posts including 121 posts of Physical Education Teachers for the different District Cadres out of which 71 were in the Open Merit category. The writ petitioners, who are residents of Udhampur, as well as the present appellants who are not residents of Udhampur were applicants for the said posts advertised. While the appellants were selected and given appointment to the posts of Physical Education Teachers in the district of Udhampur, the petitioners who were from Udhampur were placed in the waiting list. 4. The writ petitioners, the respondents in the present letters patent appeal, challenged the selection and appointment of the present appellants on the ground that the appellants were not residents of district of Udhampur, in terms of the advertisement notice read with SRO 343 of 2004 dated 13.10.2004 which provided that if any candidate applies for more than one district or division, his/her candidature shall be considered only for the district or division in which he/she is ordinarily residing, and as such the appellants who are not residents of Udhampur could not have been given appointment to the posts of Physical Education Teachers in the District Cadre of Udhampur by ignoring the claim of the writ petitioners who are residents of Udhampur. 5. 5. In the Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2008 issued on 28.05.2008, the following Clause IV provides that, “IV- APPLICATION FOR MORE THAN ONE POST/DISTRICT CADRE. (i)...... (ii) SRO 343 dated 13.10.2004 allows the candidate to apply only in District for District Cadre post and in one Division in respect of Divisional Cadre post who are permanent residents of J&K State without prescribing the conditions of domiciliary requirements. Provided that if any candidate applies for more than one district or division, his/her candidature shall be considered only for the district or division in which he/she is ordinarily residing. 6. After the aforesaid advertisement, another notification was issued on 07.10.2008 notifying the selected candidates for interview and also laying down the criteria for selection of the candidates in which it was mentioned in “Clause V” of the notification, as follows: “Clause V: The Candidates who have applied for one and the same post in more than one district including the district of his/her domicile, shall be considered for the district in which he/she is ordinarily residing and he/she shall not be considered for selection in other districts as mentioned in the advertisement notice. Those of the candidates who in violation of the rules have applied in more than one district and in violation of the rules have applied in more than one districts and none of the districts is the districts of their domicile, shall be considered only for one district at the discretion of the Board.” 7. The SSRB denied the allegations made in the petition and contended that the Select List was prepared strictly in accordance with the SRO dated 13.10.2009 and appointments were made on the basis of merit and domicile. 8. The appellants did not appear before the Ld. Single Judge, though it has been claimed by the appellants before us that they were not served notice. 9. The Ld. Single Judge on consideration of the pleadings, and as there was no rebuttal by the appellants of their residential status as pleaded by the writ petitioners, held that since the candidates had applied for more than one District, their appointments were to be considered for the district in which they were actually residing and since the appellants were not residents of Udhampur District where there were appointed, their appointments were not in accordance with the advertisement. 10. The Ld. 10. The Ld. Single Judge took the view that the SSRB did not follow SRO 343 of 2004 which was also mentioned in the Advertisement and hence, the appointments of the appellants were held to be illegal and accordingly, quashed the selection of the appellants and directed the SSRB to recommend the writ petitioners for appointment as Physical Education Teachers in the District Cadre of Udhampur provided they are next in the order of merit in the selection. 11. Before us, it has been pleaded by the appellants that there were two other advertisements issued earlier in 2006, 2007 for the posts of Physical Education Teacher being Notification Nos. 03 of 2006 and No. 07 of 2007 and the petitioners did not apply in these two advertisements. Further, the petitioners themselves also applied in more than one district other than Udhampur District and merit position differed according to the district merit lists. 12. It has been submitted that the appellant no. 5 applied under Open Category in Udhampur District pursuant to Advertisement No. 03 of 2006 and was selected. Similarly, he also applied under Notice No. 03 of 2007 for Doda District and was selected there also. The appellant no. 5 was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in Doda District and worked there for about 6 months when he was offered appointment in Udhampur District. Accordingly, he tendered his resignation and joined service in Udhampur District on 27.05.2011 and has been serving there since then. 13. In the same manner the appellant nos.1, 2 and 4 applied in Jammu, Udhampur, and Kathua Districts, and the appellant No. 2 applied in Jammu and Udhampur Districts and the appellant no. 4 applied in Poonch and Udhampur Districts in response to the advertisement Notice No. 6 of 2008 and were shortlisted to be interviewed for Udhampur District. Likewise, pursuant to notice nos. 06 of 2008 and 3 of 2006, appellant no.3 was shortlisted for interview for Jammu and Udhampur Districts and finally was selected and appointed in Udhampur District pursuant to Notice no. 3 of 2006. 14. The J&K SSRB issued the select list of the candidates and forwarded the same to Administrative Department, Department of Youth Services and Sports, which in turn, published the select list vide notification dated 22.10.2010 appointing the appellants as Physical Education Teachers in District Udhampur. 3 of 2006. 14. The J&K SSRB issued the select list of the candidates and forwarded the same to Administrative Department, Department of Youth Services and Sports, which in turn, published the select list vide notification dated 22.10.2010 appointing the appellants as Physical Education Teachers in District Udhampur. Being aggrieved by their non-selection, the writ petitioners (the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein) preferred a petition being SWP No. 1156/2011 challenging the said select list. 15. The respondents herein (writ petitioners) on the other hand submitted that it is not correct as contended by the appellants that they had not challenged the select list as they had challenged the select list bearing no. DGYSS/Estt. Dated 22.10.2010, which was based on the recommendation by the SRRB, which was quashed by the writ court. 16. Further, it was also contended that it is incorrect to say that notices were not issued, as pre-admission notices were deemed to have been served to the appellants and in fact, the appellant no.2 had appeared in person. 17. It was also contended that since the appellants did not challenge the SRO 343 of 2004 or the clauses contained therein about the domicile requirement, the appellants cannot have any grievance if their appointments are quashed on the basis of SRO 343. 18. Thus, from the pleadings and after hearing the parties, the following positions emerge: a) There was a condition in the advertisement in terms of SRO 343 that if any candidate applies for more than one district, he will be given appointment in the district in which he resides, and if the writ petitioners are residents of Udhampur District and the appellants are not, then the appointments of the appellants in Udhampur District are not in consonance with terms of advertisement. b) It is now well settled that if any appointment is made by not adhering to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement, such an appointment may be rendered invalid. c) On the other hand, as far as the appellants are concerned, these are the positions emerging. (i) The appellants have been continuing in their service since 2011 without any break. (ii) They were appointed on merit after facing competition, through public advertisement and open competition amongst eligible candidates. (iii) There is no allegation that they do not fulfil the essential qualifications or that there was any deficiency in their qualification. (i) The appellants have been continuing in their service since 2011 without any break. (ii) They were appointed on merit after facing competition, through public advertisement and open competition amongst eligible candidates. (iii) There is no allegation that they do not fulfil the essential qualifications or that there was any deficiency in their qualification. (iv) There is also no allegation that the appellants were involved in any malpractice or fraud or misrepresentation. (v) There is no allegation that at the time of appointment of the appellants they had misled the appointing authorities or that they had sought undue favour from the authorities and that the appellants had taken any undue advantage. (vi) In fact, it is the specific case of the appellant no. 3 and 5 that they were selected and appointed as Physical Education Teachers in terms of the earlier Advertisement No. 03 of 2006. (vii) As far as the appellant no.3 is concerned, he was selected and given appointment in terms of the advertisement Notice no. 3 of 2006 in Udhampur District. (viii) As regards, appellant no. 5, he was earlier appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in District Doda in terms of the earlier advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2007 and had resigned from there after he was offered appointment in District Udhampur and accordingly joined as Physical Education Teacher in Udhampur District on 27.05.2011. The case of the appellant no.5 was that he joined Udhampur District after he was offered appointment there because of which he resigned from his earlier position. Thus, the appellant no.5 would suffer most if his appointment is quashed now. 19. From the above, what can be said is that there are two competing claims, one based on legal provisions and another on equity. When a claim based on law and once the claim of the right is established, it cannot be denied to the claimant. To achieve that end and to confer the claimant the rightful claim, it may require depriving another of his rights which had otherwise accrued to him. On the other hand, claim based on equity is primarily to protect the right of a person accrued to him, based on equitable considerations, but it cannot be at the cost of such person in whose favour a legal right has accrued. On the other hand, claim based on equity is primarily to protect the right of a person accrued to him, based on equitable considerations, but it cannot be at the cost of such person in whose favour a legal right has accrued. Consequently, when grating any relief based on equity by protecting the right of such a person, the legal right accrued to the person in accordance with law must be also protected. 20. It may also be kept in mind that merely because it is lawful to do so, the writ court while exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction, may not set aside an order based on mere errors of law, if it does not lead to any substantial injustice, for while protecting a person of his legal rights, the court must also advance justice and not to thwart it. While doing so, the court has to balance the competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. Of course, a court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity and an order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned, as also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 677 , wherein it was held that, “26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner.........” 21. In our view, though the appointments of the appellants are certainly not in consonance with the terms of the advertisement and the SRO 343 of 2004, yet these appointments under the circumstances narrated above, cannot be said to be a grave and flagrant violation of law to disentitle any equitable relief to the appellants. While coming to this conclusion, we have kept in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tejinder Kaur v. Raj Kumari, (2009) 1 SCC 177 , Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 relied upon by the appellants, where the Supreme Court, in view of the long service rendered by the persons whose appointments were challenged and finding that there was not fault on their part, did not disturb their appointments. 22. In the present case also, as noticed above, the appellants could not be faulted for being offered appointment in Udhampur District. They may not be in a position to know whether there were other eligible and suitable local candidates for appointment in Udhampur. On the other hand, it was the authorities who were in the know of the positions obtaining about the availability of candidates hailing from Udhampur District, and since the authorities had offered appointment to the appellants, which they accepted, and as there was no collusion with the authorities, nor had they played fraud or misrepresented, and as the appellants were otherwise more meritorious than the writ petitioners, in view of the long service rendered by the appellants, they deserve to be protected. 23. The appellants also fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Physical Education Teachers. 23. The appellants also fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Physical Education Teachers. They claim to be more meritorious than the writ petitioners. The only hurdle coming in the way of their appointment and continuation in their service is that the writ petitioners claim to be residents of Udhampur who would have a preference over other non-local candidates. It is to be noted that if there were no eligible and suitable candidates in Udhampur, the appointments of the appellants could not have been questioned and their appointments could not have said to be contrary to the advertisement in as much as the advertisement does not bar candidates from other districts in the absence of local candidates. Under the circumstances, their appointments can be said to be more of an irregularity than being wholly and fundamentally illegal so to vitiate the appointment. 24. In the present case while granting equitable relief to the appellants by protecting their services, the legal right accrued in favour of the writ petitioners to get appointed as Physical Education Teachers in Udhampur District by virtue of merit and being residents of Udhampur District in terms of the advertisement must be also protected. 25. In our opinion, this arrangement can be achieved since admittedly, there are adequate number of vacancies in Udhampur and other Districts, in the post of Physical Education Teacher to adjust the present appellants, in the light the short affidavit filed by official respondents nos. 7 and 8 on 21.11.2019 before this Court wherein it was stated that that there are vacancies, though under the reserved quota in the following Districts. i) District Doda Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2007 and No. 06 of 2008 SC=01, ST=02, OSC=01. ii) District Poonch Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2008 RBA=07, SC=05, ST=06. iii) District Kathua Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2008 RBA=16, SC=12, ST=13. iv) District Udhampur Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2006 and 06 of 2008 RBA=19, SC=10, ST=06, ALC=02. v) District Jammu Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2006 and 06 of 2008 RBA=11, SC=10. 26. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met on equitable consideration, if the 5 (five) appellants whose appointments have been quashed by the Ld. v) District Jammu Cadre: Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2006 and 06 of 2008 RBA=11, SC=10. 26. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met on equitable consideration, if the 5 (five) appellants whose appointments have been quashed by the Ld. Single Judge are allowed to continue in their posts and the writ petitioners if they are found meritorious are also appointed in Udhampur District by adjusting against corresponding number of reserved posts in Udhampur District by de-reserving these posts, if no vacancies under Open Category in the posts of Physical Education Teacher are presently available. 27. It goes without saying that if the aforesaid reserved posts are de-reserved to accommodate the writ petitioners, these reserved posts have to be carried forward to the next recruitment year by adjusting against unreserved posts. 28. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of by partially allowing by setting aside the impugned order of the Ld. Single Judge which had quashed selection and appointment of the 5 (five) appellants with the direction not to disturb their appointments, and by upholding the direction issued to the Board to recommend the names of the writ petitioners for appointment as Physical Education Teachers in District Cadre of Udhampur provided they are next in order of merit in the selection so conducted pursuant to the Advertisement Notification No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008.