JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. This intra court appeal, filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board [“the SSB”], is directed against the judgment dated 04.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“The Writ Court”] in SWP No. 2226/2014 titled Jahangir Ahmed vs. State of J&K and Others whereby the Writ Court has allowed the petition of the respondent no. 1 and directed the SSB to select the respondent no. 1 and recommend his candidature for appointment to the post of teacher in district cadre Poonch in the ex-servicemen category from the date, the respondent no. 5 herein has been appointed. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the SSB, it is necessary to set out few material facts, germane to the disposal of the controversy raised in this appeal. 3. Vide advertisement notice no. 5 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013, the SSB invited applications for making selection to the post of teacher in district cadre Poonch and the last date for submission of applications, as indicated in the notification, was fixed as 31.03.2013. 4. While the process of selection pursuant to the aforesaid notification was under way, the SSB issued another advertisement notification bearing no. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 with the cutoff date for submission of the applications as 10.06.2013. 5. The respondent no. 1 responded to both the advertisement notifications and sought his consideration under the reserved category of ex-servicemen. The respondent no. 1 was issued an admit card and was permitted to sit in the written examination. The respondent no. 1 even appeared in the interview/viva voce. However, when the select list was published in July, 2014, the respondent no. 5 herein was shown selected in the category of ex-servicemen. The respondent no. 1, whose name did not figure in the select list in the category of ex-servicemen, filed SWP No. 2226/2014 before the Writ Court and challenged the selection of the respondent no. 5 as teacher under the ex-servicemen category to the exclusion of the respondent no. 1. 6. The writ petition was contested by the SSB and in the reply filed, it was the stand taken by the SSB that the respondent no. 5 as teacher under the ex-servicemen category to the exclusion of the respondent no. 1. 6. The writ petition was contested by the SSB and in the reply filed, it was the stand taken by the SSB that the respondent no. 1 was not eligible to be considered under the category of ex-servicemen for the reason that on the date of issuance of advertisement notifications as also on the cutoff dates fixed for submissions of the application forms qua both the notifications, the respondent no. 1 was still serving in the army and had not been honourably discharged. 7. The Writ Court considered the rival contentions as also the material on record and while placing reliance on the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amended in 1986 [“the amended Rules of 1979”] as also on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of J&K vs. Taramani and Another, 2018 (2) SLJ (HC) 767, came to the conclusion that the respondent no. 1, who was to retire within one year, was also entitled to be treated as ex-serviceman and thus, eligible to apply for the post in question. It was, thus, ruled by the Writ Court that the Rules of 1979 were in a way amendment to the definition of “ex-servicemen” provided in clause-x of rule 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. The Writ Court mainly relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Taramani’s case (supra). 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ court is not correct in law and, therefore, cannot sustain. 9. The reservations in the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir and even in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir after reorganization are governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the rules framed thereunder. 10. In terms of the Rule 2(x) the term “ex-servicemen” has been defined as under: 2(x) “ex-servicemen” means permanent resident of state who has served in Army/Navy/Air-Force and has been honourably discharged and has not come to notice for any criminal or anti national activity. 11. 10. In terms of the Rule 2(x) the term “ex-servicemen” has been defined as under: 2(x) “ex-servicemen” means permanent resident of state who has served in Army/Navy/Air-Force and has been honourably discharged and has not come to notice for any criminal or anti national activity. 11. From the reading of the definition of the “ex-servicemen” reproduced above, it is abundantly clear that a person to be treated as ex-servicemen for the purposes of Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 must be a person who has served in Army/Navy/Air-Force and has been honourably discharged. The reservation in appointment by direct recruitment is delineated in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2005 and lays down horizontal reservation to the extent of 6% of the available vacancies in favour of the ex-servicemen against such posts only where the maximum pay scale does not exceed Rs. 10,500/-. 12. From reading of Rule 4, it clearly transpires that the horizontal reservation to the extent of the 6% is provided only to the ex-servicemen and, as adverted to earlier, the ex-servicemen has been clearly defined in clause-x of Rule 2 to mean a person who is permanent resident of the state and has served in Army/Navy/Air-Force and has been honourably discharged. That being the clear position emerging from reading of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules of 2005 framed by the government in excise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 read with Section 22 of the J&K persons with Disabilities Act, 1988, the respondent no. 1, to be eligible to seek the benefit of reservation provided for ex-servicemen, ought to have been honourably discharged on or before the cutoff dates fixed in reference to the notifications in question i.e. 31.03.2013 and 10.06.2013 respectively. 13. Indisputably, the respondent no. 1 was discharged from the army service w.e.f. 30.11.2013 i.e. much after the cutoff date fixed in both the advertisement notifications. It is, thus, evident that in terms of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 which would govern the selections in question, the respondent no. 1 acquired the eligibility for the first time to apply for any employment under the state under the said category on 30.11.2013 i.e. when he got honourable discharge from Indian Army. 14. Viewed thus, we have no manner of doubt that on the cutoff date, the respondent no. 1 acquired the eligibility for the first time to apply for any employment under the state under the said category on 30.11.2013 i.e. when he got honourable discharge from Indian Army. 14. Viewed thus, we have no manner of doubt that on the cutoff date, the respondent no. 1 was not eligible to seek consideration of his candidature under the category of ex-servicemen. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the Rules of 1979 is of no help for the simple reason that the Rules of 1979 have been framed by the President in excise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and are applicable only to the Central Civil Services and the posts, which are clearly reflected in the nomenclature of the rules itself. That apart, Rule 3, which deals with the application of the rules, also reads as under: “These rules shall apply to all the Central Civil Services and the Posts and the posts upto the level of the Assistant Commandant in all Paramilitary Forces.” 15. On the face of it, the Rules are not intended to be made applicable or extended to the services other than the Central Civil Services and the Posts upto the level of the Assistant Commandant in the Paramilitary Force. 16. Otherwise also, having regard to the distribution of the legislative business, the Central Government could not have framed any service rules for the states. It appears that the Division Bench which decided Taramani’s case (supra) did not appreciate this aspect of the matter and took the Rules of 1979 as an amendment to the definition of ex-servicemen given in clause-x of Rule 2 of the Rules of 2005. From the reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in case of Taramani (supra), we find that this aspect of the matter was not even raised on behalf of the Service Selection Board and this resulted into commission of an error on the face of it by the Division Bench of this Court. 17. The issue that the Rules of 1979, framed by the President in excise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309, were applicable only to the Central Civil Services and Posts and the posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in Paramilitary Forces was not adverted to by the Division Bench of this Court. 17. The issue that the Rules of 1979, framed by the President in excise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309, were applicable only to the Central Civil Services and Posts and the posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in Paramilitary Forces was not adverted to by the Division Bench of this Court. Before we proceed further, we deemed it appropriate to set out Article 309 of Constitution herein-below: “309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.” 18. From careful reading of Article 309, it would clearly transpire that the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with affairs of Union or of any State is provided to be regulated by Act of Parliament or State Legislature respectively. And until such legislation is enacted by appropriate legislature, it shall be competent for the President in respect of the Union and for the Governor in respect of State to lay down rules regulating recruitment and condition of service of the persons appointed to the services and posts in connection with affairs of Union and State respectively. In the instant case, the State which includes Union Territory has already regulated the reservations in appointment to services and posts in connection with its affairs by an Act of Legislature i.e. J&K Reservation Act, 2004. In the instant case, the State which includes Union Territory has already regulated the reservations in appointment to services and posts in connection with its affairs by an Act of Legislature i.e. J&K Reservation Act, 2004. That being the clear position emerging from reading of the Article 309, the Central Government does not have any competence to abrogate, modify or amend the reservation provisions contained in the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder. 19. Thus, we do not find any good reasons given by the Division Bench to read into the definition of “ex-servicemen” given in clause-x of the Rule 2 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, the provisions of Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 as amended in 1986. 20. The explanation given in the amended Rules of 1979, which has been taken as an explanation to the definition of the “ex-servicemen” given in the J&K Reservation Rules, was clearly meant to be an explanation to the amended Rules of 1979 and, therefore, could not have been read into the definition of “ex-servicemen” given in the Reservation Rules of 2005. 21. Viewed thus, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Taramani is per incuriam and has ignored an important aspect that the explanation which was read by the Division Bench into the definition of “ex-servicemen” given in the Reservation Rules, 2005 was an explanation only to the amended Rules of 1979 promulgated by the President for providing certain benefits to the ex-servicemen for their re-employment in the Central Civil Services and Paramilitary Forces and had thus, no application to the State Services and the reservation provided therefor. Otherwise also, as explained above, the President has no competence to issue any Rules which have the affect of amending, abridging or abrogation the services rules regulating recruitment to services and posts in connection with affairs of any State or Union Territory. 22. The Single Bench has simply followed the judgment of the Division Bench which we have held per incuriam for the reasons discussed above. 23. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent no. 22. The Single Bench has simply followed the judgment of the Division Bench which we have held per incuriam for the reasons discussed above. 23. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the ex-servicemen is a matter of status and discharge certificate was only a declaration of such status and, therefore, even if the discharge certificate was made available to the SSB after the cutoff date, the same could not have been denied to be considered. We find no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 for the simple reason that ex-servicemen is a status which is acquired by a member of the force only after his discharge, more particularly, when it is clearly provided in clause-x of Rule 2 of the Rules of 2005 as to how such status could be acquired. 24. The respondent no. 1 could not have claimed to be an “ex-serviceman” in terms of clause-x of Rule 2 even before he was actually discharged from army. 25. For the forgoing reasons, we find merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the writ court is set aside. The writ petition shall stand dismissed.