JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. This intra-court appeal by the appellant-Abhishek Khajuria is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge ["the Writ Court"] in SWP No.679/2018 titled Abhishek Khajuria v. State of J&K and others, whereby the Writ Court has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu dated 17.02.2018 and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. 2. Before we turn to consider the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of factual antecedents leading up to the filing of this appeal. 3. The appellant was born in the year 1993 in village Samwan Pallanwala Tehsil Khour District Jammu, an area adjoining to the Actual Line of Control (ALC). In the year 1999, due to disturbance on the border, the appellant, who was six years old, was forced to shift and take temporary residence along with his parents in the township of Akhnoor. It is where the appellant was brought up and received education. At the time of shifting from Samwan to Akhnoor, both the parents of the appellant were serving in the School Education Department and were posted in Akhnoor only. 4. On an application filed by the appellant for grant of certificate of being a member of Socially and Educationally Backward Class (Resident of area adjoining Line of Actual Control), the Tehsildar, Akhnoor issued requisite category certificate in favour of the appellant, which was delivered to him by the Tehsildar concerned under his hand and seal on 23rd September, 2008. The certificate issued was to remain valid for a period of five years from the date of issue thereof. 5. Admittedly, the category certificate issued in favour of the appellant was not assailed by anybody and it remained in operation for prescribed period of five years. However, on the expiry of the period of validity of the category certificate issued in favour of the appellant on 23rd September, 2013, an application was moved by the appellant for renewal thereof under Rules. The Competent Authority considered the application and renewed the ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant for a further period of five years on 23rd September, 2013. 6. The Competent Authority considered the application and renewed the ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant for a further period of five years on 23rd September, 2013. 6. It seems and is substantiated by the material on record, the appellant as well as respondent No.7 along with other candidates belonging to ALC category responded to an advertisement notification issued by the J&K Services Selection Board for filling up the post of Accounts Assistants. In the selection process conducted by the J&K SSB, the name of the appellant figured in the waitlist ahead of respondent No.7 in the category of ALC. This, as is contended by the appellant, made respondent No.7 to rake up the controversy with regard to validity of ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2008 and renewed in the year 2013. Respondent No.7 moved the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu by filing a petition styled as "Appeal/Revision" to seek quashment of the ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant. 7. On being put on notice by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant contested the application by filing his objections. The Deputy Commissioner considered the entire issue in the light of relevant record and the rival contentions of both the sides and came to the conclusion that the certificate of ALC category issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2008 and renewed in the year 2013 by the Tehsildar, Akhnoor was contrary to and in violation of Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 ["the Act of 2004"] and the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 framed thereuder. Accordingly, vide his order dated 17.02.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu cancelled the certificate of ALC category issued in favour of the appellant. 8. Aggrieved, the appellant filed SWP No.679/2018, which, upon completion of pleadings, was taken up by the Writ Court for consideration and disposal. Vide judgment dated 03.05.2019, impugned in this appeal, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu cancelling ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant 9. Vide judgment dated 03.05.2019, impugned in this appeal, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu cancelling ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant 9. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the appellant along with his family is permanent resident of village Samwan, an area near Actual Line of Control and, therefore, could not be denied the category certificate of ALC on the ground that since 1999, the appellant along with his parents is putting up in Akhnoor town, which falls outside the area adjoining actual line of control and that the income of the family of the appellant exceeds the ceiling prescribed under the Act of 2004 and rules framed thereunder. 10. It is argued by Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the appellant, that in terms of proviso to Clause (ix) of Section 2(o) of the Act of 2004, the income ceiling shall not apply to a person, who has lived and completed his entire school education from an area adjoining Actual Line of Control and in case such schooling is not available in such area from the nearest adjoining area. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid provisos has not been correctly interpreted and appreciated, either by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu or by the Writ Court and both have fallen in error in holding the applicant not eligible to the issuance of ALC category certificate. He contends that the appellant could not complete his entire school education while living in ALC area after the year 1999 due to the circumstances beyond his control. He argues that due to tension between India and Pakistan and continuous shelling on the border, the appellant along with family had to migrate and settle temporary in Akhnoor township. At that point of time, the appellant was only six years old and, therefore, was forced by the circumstances to take education in the schools located in the township of Akhnoor. It is submitted that due to unfavourable conditions prevailing on the border, people of Pallanwala area including those of village Samwan were shifted by the Government to village Palwan, which is situated at a distance of only 4-5 kilometer from Akhnoor. It is submitted that due to unfavourable conditions prevailing on the border, people of Pallanwala area including those of village Samwan were shifted by the Government to village Palwan, which is situated at a distance of only 4-5 kilometer from Akhnoor. He, therefore, contents that the Writ Court ought to have considered this aspect and considered the appellant and his family also residing in Palwan and applied the proviso on the ground that the appellant had got his education from a school in Akhnoor, which was nearest adjoining area to his place of deemed residence. 11. Learned counsel urges this Court to interpret the provision of Section 2(o)(ix) and the proviso appended thereto in a manner that furthers the object of reservation underlying the Act of 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder. He also finds fault with the manner in which the highly belated appeal filed by respondent No.7 was entertained and allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, does not dispute that both the parents of the appellant are employed in the School Education Department and that their annual income is much higher than the ceiling prescribed under Section 2(o)(ix) of the Act of 2004. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the argument that the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu as also the Writ Court could not appreciate the fact that the appellant was prevented from living in his village and receiving education from the schools situated in such area because of the circumstances beyond his control. Submissions of the respondents: 12. The official respondents represented by Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG and respondent No.7 represented by Mr. Sunil Sethi, senior Advocate have supported the reasoning given by the Writ Court to dismiss the writ petition of the appellant and to uphold the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.7, that the object of providing reservation in favour of persons residents of an area adjoining Line of Actual Control, who on Accounts of location of their residence suffer from psychological stress and anxiety, is that they are provided level play field to compete with the candidates living in other areas having access to better schools and education. It is argued that if a person, who because of reasons, within or beyond his control, shifts to a place which has better schools and education and receives such education, cannot be said to have suffered disadvantage of living in an area adjoining Actual Line of Control. Discussion and Analysis 13. The facts are not much in dispute. We believe and our belief is supported by the material on record that the appellant was born in the year 1999 to his parents in village Samwan, an area adjoining Actual Line of Control. He lived in the said area till the year 1999 when he along with his parents shifted to and took temporary residence in the township of Akhnoor. Both the parents of the appellant are serving in the Education Department. The appellant and his family was forced to shift from village Samwan to a safer area of Akhnoor because of the hostile and averse circumstances prevailing on the border in the wake of Kargil war. It has also come on record in the report of the Revenue officer that the people of Pallanwala area including village Samwan were mostly shifted and relocated to village Palwan, a village situated at a distance of about 27 kilometer from Samwan. The appellant, who had his parents serving in the Education Department, however, could afford to shift to Akhnoor and provide better schooling to the appellant. In the year 2008, on an application filed by the appellant, ALC category certificate was issued in his favour by the then Tehsildar Akhnoor. 14. Indisputably, the aforesaid certificate was not questioned by anybody. As is provided under the Rules of 2005 and is also indicated in the category certificate issued on 23.09.2008, the certificate once issued was to remain valid for a period of five years. On the expiry of validity of the certificate, the appellant applied for renewal and the same was renewed by the competent authority on 29.08.2013. Renewed category certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2013 could have also gone unchallenged had name of the appellant not figured in the select/waitlist of the Accounts Assistants issued by the J&KSSB. Respondent No.7 was also a candidate in the selection and was next in the order of merit to the appellant in the ALC category. Renewed category certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2013 could have also gone unchallenged had name of the appellant not figured in the select/waitlist of the Accounts Assistants issued by the J&KSSB. Respondent No.7 was also a candidate in the selection and was next in the order of merit to the appellant in the ALC category. As is rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, this competing interest of respondent No.7 made him to rake up the controversy with regard to the ineligibility of the appellant to seek such category certificate. 15. Before the select list could be given effect to and the appellant appointed by the competent authority, respondent No.7 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and mounted challenge to the ALC category certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2008 and renewed in the year 2013 by the Tehsildar, Akhnoor. We have already discussed in detail that the Deputy Commissioner agreed with the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.7 and on scrutiny of record concluded that the category certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2008 and renewed in the year 2013 was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Writ Court did not find any legal infirmity or procedural impropriety with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and resultantly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the material on record. The entire controversy raised in this appeal hinges upon the interpretation and correct understanding of the relevant provisions dealing with the entitlement of a person to the issue of category certificate of ALC. 17. Before we embark upon to analyze all the relevant provisions, we deem it necessary to observe that reservation in appointment has its genesis to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and the avowed object of providing reservation in appointments is giving level playing field to socially and educationally backward and economically weaker sections of the society so that they can compete for employment with those who are privileged and have better access to education and other amenities of life. 18. With a view to give effect to reservation in appointments, the State legislature enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 ["the Act of 2004"]. 18. With a view to give effect to reservation in appointments, the State legislature enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 ["the Act of 2004"]. Apart from other identified classes of citizens for providing reservation like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Act of 2004 identified Socially and Educationally Backward classes also for giving them the benefit of reservation. The Act of 2004 defines socially and educationally backward classes in Section 2(o), which for facility of reference is set out below:- "2. Definitions.--- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--- ………………………………………. ………………………………………….. The Act of 2004 defines socially and educationally backward classes in Section 2(o), which for facility of reference is set out below:- "2. Definitions.--- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--- ………………………………………. ………………………………………….. (o) "socially and educationally backward classes" mean–– (i) persons residing in the backward area ; (ii) the persons residing in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control and International Border ; (iii) weak and under-privileged classes (social castes), declared as such under notification SRO-394 dated 5-9-1981 read with notification SRO-272 dated 3-7-1982 and notification SRO271 dated 22-8-1988 as amended from time to time : (iv) the persons belonging to pahari community, clan or tribe having distinct cultural, ethnic and linguistic identity to be identified in such manner as may be prescribed and by such Authority as may be appointed by the Government in this behalf ; and Provided that the Government may, on the recommendations of a Commission to be constituted by the Government in this behalf], make inclusions in, and exclusion from, the said category from time to time : Provided further that the persons specified below and their children shall be excluded from the category of socially and educationally backward classes:— (i) Governor (serving or retired) ; (ii) Chief Justice and Judges (serving or retired) of High Court or the Supreme Court of India ; (iii) Chief Minister and Ex-Chief Minister ; (iv) Ministers and Ex-Ministers of Cabinet rank ; (iv) Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers having more than one term ; (v) Chairman and members of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission or the Union Public Service Commission ; (vii) Members of the State Legislature (elected and nominated both) having more than one term irrespective of the period under the second term ; (viii) Members of All India Services ; (ix) any person whose annual income from all sources, determined in the prescribed manner, exceeds 1 rupees eight lacs or such amount as may be notified by the Government from time to time in accordance with the prescribed norms Provided that the income ceiling shall not apply to a person who has lived and completed entire school education from an area identified as Backward or Actual Line of Control or International Border], as the case may be, and in case such schooling is not available in such area, from the nearest adjoining area ; (x) such other persons as the Government may notify from time to time ; 19. As is evident from a reading of Clause (ii) of Section 2(o), the person residing in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control and International Border are included in the definition of term "socially and educationally backward classes" The area adjoining Actual Line of Control is separately defined in Section 2(c), which reads thus:- “(c) “areas adjoining the actual line of control” means the area declared as such by the Government from time to time;” 20. The definition of socially and educationally backward classes, which takes within its sweep persons residing in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control is hedged by first and second proviso appended to Section 2(o). Certain persons and their children have been excluded from the category of socially and educationally backward classes i.e. Governor (serving or retired); Chief Justice and judges (serving or retired) of High court or the Supreme Court of India’ Chief Minister and Ex-Chief Minister; Ministers and Ex-Ministers of Cabinet rank etc etc. What is, however, relevant for our purposes is that apart from the first proviso, Clause (ix) excludes from the category of socially and educationally backward classes any person whose annual income from all sources exceeds Rs.8.00 lakhs or such amount as may be notified by the Government from time to time in accordance with the prescribed norms. We make it clear that the amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs was introduced by SRO 7 of 2019 dated 07.01.2019 and at the relevant point of time when the ALC certificate of the appellant was renewed the ceiling limit was Rs.4,50,000/-. What would further come out from reading of Section 2(o), in particular, second proviso appended thereto is that income ceiling shall not apply to a person, if he fulfills following conditions:- (a) He has lived in the area identified as ALC; (b) Completed his entire school education from such area; and (c) If no schooling is available in such area, from the nearest adjoining area. 21. On examining the admitted factual position obtaining in the case, we find that the appellant, who along with his family is a resident of village Samwan, an area adjoining Actual Line of Control suffers from the disability to obtain the category certificate of socially and educationally backward classes for the reason that his annual income from all sources exceeds the ceiling limit prescribed in Section 2(o)(ix). The appellant, admittedly, does not fulfill three requirements provided in second proviso to come out of the aforesaid disability. 22. Admittedly, the appellant has only lived in village Samwan till the age of six years and thereafter has lived and completed his entire school education from an area which is outside the area identified as adjoining Actual Line of Control. The appellant cannot successfully contend that by living and completing his entire school education from Akhnoor town he has fulfilled the requirement of getting education from the nearest adjoining area. We are saying so because, as per the proviso, the entire school education is required to be completed by the person, asking for waiver of ceiling condition, from an area identified as ALC and it is only when such schooling is not available in such area, he may complete his school education from the nearest adjoining area. 23. Nearest adjoining area would mean the area must be adjoining to ALC area and nearest among the adjoining areas. The area identified as ALC in the instant case is obviously village Samwan, which is at a distance of approximately 31 kilometers from the township of Akhnoor. The nearest adjoining area to the identified area as ALC (Samwan) is village Kaleeth located at a distance of approximately 14 kilometers. This is so certified by Mr. R.K. Shrivastava, AE (Civil), Second-in-command, GREF. 24. The argument of Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, that Akhnoor should be held to be the nearest adjoining area for the purposes of application of the proviso on the ground that Akhnoor is situated at a distance of 4-5 km from Palwan is also without any substance. We cannot rewrite Section 2(o) to read down the expression "nearest adjoining area" to mean an area situate nearest to the area where the people after their migration from ALC area have settled. Obviously, such contingency was not conceived by the legislature and, therefore, no such provision was made in the Act of 2004 and the rules framed thereunder. The nearest adjoining area by its plain meaning would mean the area which is in the closest vicinity of the area identified as ALC under the Act of 2004. Obviously, such contingency was not conceived by the legislature and, therefore, no such provision was made in the Act of 2004 and the rules framed thereunder. The nearest adjoining area by its plain meaning would mean the area which is in the closest vicinity of the area identified as ALC under the Act of 2004. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Deputy Commissioner, Jammu that to come out of the income ceiling disability provided under Clause (ix) of Section 2(o), it was necessary for the appellant to demonstrate and prove before the Competent Authority that not only he had lived in but had also completed his entire school education from an area identified as ALC. We are also not impressed by the argument of Mr. S.S. Ahmed that Palwan, where most of the people subjected to forced migration by the circumstances beyond their control from ALC area were settled, should be taken to be the ALC area for the purposes of applicability of second proviso of Section 2(o). 25. As we have already held that when the language of a statute is clear and unequivocal, Courts cannot embark upon putting any interpretation other than the literal interpretation. We have also pointed out three requirements envisaged under the proviso, which, if fulfilled, would bring the case of an applicant seeking ALC category certificate out of the income ceiling condition provided in Clause (ix) of Section 2(o) of the Act of 2004. 26. As is aptly observed by the Writ Court that "Migration", in all circumstances, is not a curse but many a times it turns out to be a boon and a blessing in disguise. In the instant case, the migration of populace from border areas was triggered by unsavory circumstances created by Kargil war and hostilities by our neighbouring country. The people from Samwan were also forced to migrate and leave their home and hearth. Those who were forced to stay in camps in tented accommodations were, of course, visited with difficulties and miseries. However, those like the appellant and his family who were well off got the opportunity to provide residence and education to the appellant in better educational institutions in the township of Akhnoor. Those who were forced to stay in camps in tented accommodations were, of course, visited with difficulties and miseries. However, those like the appellant and his family who were well off got the opportunity to provide residence and education to the appellant in better educational institutions in the township of Akhnoor. The disability which appellant would have suffered by being resident of Samwan did not come in his way in getting better education by having access to better schools and better amenities of life. Viewed thus, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that he was forced to shift from his native village Samwan and, therefore, cannot be deprived of ALC category status on the ground that he did not live and receive education in such area clearly lacks logic and is completely unacceptable. 27. Having held thus, we would like to deal with another argument of learned counsel for the appellant based upon his understanding of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2005. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Clause (iii) of Rule 21 to submit that a person claiming the benefit on the ground that he belongs to an identified area near the Line of Actual Control must establish that he/she has resided in the area for a period not less than 15 years prior to the application and is actually residing in the said area. However, such person shall not be disentitled from claiming such benefit only on the ground that his/her father or person on whom he/she is dependent is living in a place which is not identified as area near Line of Actual Control on Accounts of his employment, business or other professional or vocational reasons etc. He, therefore, submits that the appellant could not live in the ALC area for a period of fifteen years on Accounts of employment of his both parents and, therefore, is not disentitled from claiming the benefit of reservation only on the ground that he had not been residing in the area for a period not less than fifteen years prior to the date of application or that he is not actually residing in the said area. 28. We have given thoughtful consideration to aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant and find that the same does not hold merit on close scrutiny. 28. We have given thoughtful consideration to aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant and find that the same does not hold merit on close scrutiny. True it is that under Rule 21(iii), a person claiming benefit of reservation on the ground that he belongs to an area near Line of Actual Control is required to establish before the Competent Authority that he has resided in the area for a minimum period of fifteen years prior to the date of application and is actually residing on the said date in the said area. There is, however, proviso appended to Clause (iii), which carves out an exception by providing that a person shall not be disentitled from claiming the benefit only on the ground that his father or the person on whom he/she is dependent is living in a place which is not identified as area near Line of Actual Control on Accounts of following:- (a) employment; (b) business; (c) other professional or vocational reasons; (d) migration from one place to another within respective division due to security reasons. We are, however, at loss to understand as to how this provision in Rule 21 would help the appellant. 29. To summarize and sum up, we say and hold, that for claiming the benefit of reservation by a person on the ground that he belongs to identified area near Line of Actual Control, a person is required to establish following:- (i) He/she belongs to an area identified near Line of Actual Control (before SRO 321 of 2019 dated 27.05.2019 a person claiming the benefit was to establish that he was a resident of an area near Line of Control); (ii) That he or she has resided in the area for a period not less than fifteen years prior to the date of application; (iii) He or she is actually residing in the said area on the date of application; (iv) He or she shall not be disentitled from claiming the benefit only on the ground that his or her father or the person on whom he or she is dependent is living in a place outside such area identified as ALC are on Accounts of his (a) employment; or (b) business; or (c) other professional or vocational reasons; or (d) migration from one place to another. (v) He or she shall not be entitled to issue of certificate of ALC, if his annual income from all sources would exceed the ceiling limit prescribed under Clause (ix) of Section 2(o). (vi) He/she shall not be disentitled to seek the benefit of being a person belonging to socially and educationally backward classes on Accounts of income ceiling provided under Clause (ix) (supra) provided he establishes before the Competent Authority :- (a) That he/she had lived and completed entire education in the ALC area; or (b) In case such schooling is not available in ALC area from the nearest adjoining area. 30. From the above discussion, it is evident and abundantly clear that a person who resides in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control belongs to socially and educationally backward class under the Act of 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder and is entitled to the benefit of reservation in appointment to the government service. Ordinarily, a person residing in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control would be entitled to be issued a certificate of category belonging to socially and educationally backward class (ALC) but this right to claim the certificate is hedged by and subject to meeting the requirements of Cause (ix) of Section 2(o) and Rule 21(3) of the Rules of 2004. The proviso to Clause (3) of Rule 20 discussed elaborately herein above, exclude from the category of socially and educationally backward classes a person whose annual income exceeds the ceiling prescribed under Clause (ix) providing further that such income ceiling shall not come in the way of the applicant seeking ALC category certificate provided he establishes before the Competent Authority that he has lived and completed his entire education in ALC area or where such schooling is not available, in the adjoining area. This requirement is independent of the requirements provided in Rule 21 (iii), which provides that for claiming benefit of ALC category, a person must establish that he has resided in ALC area for a period not less than fifteen years from the date of application and is residing in such area on the date of application. There is, however, an exception carved out to the aforesaid provision, which we have already discussed herein above. The two requirements are entirely different, one provided under the Act of legislature and the other under subordinate legislation. There is, however, an exception carved out to the aforesaid provision, which we have already discussed herein above. The two requirements are entirely different, one provided under the Act of legislature and the other under subordinate legislation. Both operate in different directions and to claim exemption both provide for establishing certain requirements. 31. Having held thus, we now proceed to consider the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu passed the impugned order of cancellation of ALC certificate issued in favour of the appellant by entertaining the appeal beyond limitation provided under Section 17 of the Act of 2004. 32. Chapter V of the Act of 2004 inter alia includes provision of appeal and revision provided separately under Sections 17 and 18 thereof. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that any person who is aggrieved by an order of Competent Authority passed under Section 16 is entitled to file an appeal within a period of ninety days from the date of the order. However, under Section 18, the Appellate Authority may, either suo moto or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings or orders made, by any Competent Authority for the purposes of satisfying itself to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit. There is, however, no period of limitation prescribed for exercising the power of revision either suo moto or on an application made to it by any person. 33. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to set out Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act of 2004 herein below:- "16. Issuance of certificate.---- The Competent Authority shall, within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the application and for reasons to be recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. On acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the requisite certificate to the applicant in the prescribed form. 17. Issuance of certificate.---- The Competent Authority shall, within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the application and for reasons to be recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. On acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the requisite certificate to the applicant in the prescribed form. 17. Appeals.--- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority under section 16, may, at any time before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to–– (i) Deputy Commissioner, if the order appealed against is passed by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Competent Authority ; or (ii) Divisional Commissioner, if the order appealed against is passed by Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Competent Authority. (2) The Appellate Authority shall, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, pass such orders on it as it deems fit : Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 18. Revision. The Appellate Authority may, suo moto or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or orders made, by any Competent Authority for purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit : Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Sections 16, 17 and 18 are required to be read along with Rules 23, 24 and 25 of the Rules of 2005, which for facility of reference are also reproduced hereunder:- "23. Issuance of Certificate. - The Competent Authority shall within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the application for reasons to be recorded in writing either accept the application or reject it. On the acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the requisite certificate to the applicant in Form VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, as the case may be. 24. Validity and Renewal. On the acceptance of the application, the authority shall immediately issue the requisite certificate to the applicant in Form VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, as the case may be. 24. Validity and Renewal. - The certificates issued to residents of Backward Areas or Areas near the Line of Actual Control shall be valid for a period of five years at a time and the certificates shall be renewable after following the procedure prescribed for issuance of such certificate. 25. Appeals. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of rejection of the Competent Authority under rule 23 may, prefer an appeal to the appellate authority under section 17 of the Act." 34. From a conjoint reading of Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act of 2004 and the Rule 25, it clearly transpires that intention of the legislature is to provide remedy of appeal only to a person who is aggrieved by an order of rejection of his application for issuance of relevant category certificate. It is because of this reason and clear intent, Rule 25 clearly lays down that an appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 17 of the Act of 2004 would lie at the instance of a person aggrieved by an order of rejection of the Competent Authority under Rule 23. The remedy of a person other than a person who is aggrieved by order of rejection of his application for grant of category certificate is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act of 2004. 35. As we have held herein above, Section 18 of the Act of 2004 does not lay down any period of limitation for invoking such power whether suo moto or on an application made to it. In the instant case, respondent No.7 had no reason to be aware of the issuance of ALC certificate in favour of the appellant till she was confronted with the name of the appellant figuring in the select/waitlist of Accounts Assistants under ALC category. This led the respondent No.7 to enquire into the matter and lodge her protest before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, which she did by filing an application styled as appeal/revision. 36. We need no emphasis when we say that it is not the nomenclature but the substance of the application that matters and is relevant. This led the respondent No.7 to enquire into the matter and lodge her protest before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, which she did by filing an application styled as appeal/revision. 36. We need no emphasis when we say that it is not the nomenclature but the substance of the application that matters and is relevant. If the power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu (Appellate Authority) is traceable to Section 18 of the Act of 2004, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction for the reason that what was invoked by the applicant was the appellate power and that too beyond the period of limitation prescribed. We find no force in the arguments made by Mr. S.S. Ahmed on this issue. 37. Lastly, Mr. S.S. Ahmed argued that even if the Court for some reasons concurs with the view taken by the Writ Court yet this Court must in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction save the selection and appointment of the appellant. He submits that it is not anybody’s case that the appellant has obtained the category certificate by fraud or misrepresentation and as such, could be blamed for any illegality or irregularity, if any, committed by the Competent Authority while issuing or renewing the category certificate of the appellant. He relies upon several judgments of this Court as also Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that in such a situation, this Court in the exercise of extraordinary equitable writ jurisdiction must save the selection and appointment of the appellant. 38. We have considered this aspect of the matter also in light of the judgments cited by Mr. S.S. Ahmed. While we do not dispute the proposition of law that in appropriate cases Hon’ble the Supreme Court exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have refused to set aside selection/appointment made in irregular manner where it was found that irregularity or procedural impropriety committed by the selection body was not attributable to any act or omission on the part of the selectees/appointees. 39. In the instant case, as is evident from the affidavit submitted by Mr. 39. In the instant case, as is evident from the affidavit submitted by Mr. Prabh Dayal Sharma (Retired Tehsildar, Akhnoor), who had renewed the ALC category certificate in favour of the appellant, the father of the appellant had obtained the renewal of the category certificate by mis representation and without disclosing that the annual income of the family exceeded the limit as prescribed under the Act of 2004 and the rules framed thereunder. He has admitted that he granted renewal of the certificate without insisting for this aspect due to heavy rush of the work. 40. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore the affidavit of the Competent Authority, which renewed the category certificate of the appellant, indicating that the ALC certificate of the appellant was got renewed by his father by not stating true facts. 41. Be that as it may, in the instant case when the appellant filed SWP No.679/2018, the appellant was undergoing training at National Zonal Accountancy Training Institute, Jammu and was to be posted in some Government department after conclusion of aforesaid training in June, 2018. However, with the dismissal of the writ petition and upholding of the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling his ALC category certificate by the Writ Court, the appellant was not posted by the Finance Department in any of the department. He was not even released the salary as was claimed by him through the medium of CM No.4741/2022. That apart, respondent No.7, who holds a valid ALC category certificate issued by the Competent Authority, cannot be deprived of her right to appointment only on the ground that the appellant has been considered and appointed over and above her on the basis of a certificate, which the Deputy Commissioner, Writ Court and we have found issued in violation of and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2004 and the rules framed thereunder. 42. We also take note of the fact that because of the pendency of this litigation and the challenge mounted by respondent No.7 to the category certificate immediately after selection of the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, equity cannot be said to have tilted in fravour of the appellant. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are decided on their own facts and do not have universal application in the matter of invoking and applying equitable jurisdiction. 43. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are decided on their own facts and do not have universal application in the matter of invoking and applying equitable jurisdiction. 43. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.