The court emphasized that the issue raised by the appellants applied to all candidates and not just the general category, and therefore, the selection of candidates in the general category could not be examined separately.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. In all the three appeals, appellants have assailed common order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in LPASW No. 102/2017 submitted that the posts of Stock Assistants in Sheep and Animal Husbandry Department were advertised by Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) on 05.10.2007. The posts pertained to six districts in Jammu Division. Vide Notification dated 29.05.2008, the criteria for selection was notified. It provided that for Matric with Science, a candidate was to be awarded 40 points. It further provided that 15 points were to be awarded for Diploma in Sheep Husbandry. The criteria as prescribed is reproduced below for the facility of reference:-

S. No.	Qualification	Points
1	Matric with Science	40 Points
2.	10+2	05 Points
3.	Graduation	10 Points
4.	P.G	10 Points
5.	Diploma in Sheep Husbandry	15 Points
6.	Viva-voce	20 Points
Total		100 Points

3. Interviews were conducted on 11.06.2008 and the provisional select list was published in the newspapers on 31.12.2009. The names of the appellants were forming part of the provisional select list, however, no appointment letters were issued. To the surprise of the appellants, fresh criteria for selection was notified on 06.09.2010, wherein 15 points prescribed for Diploma in Sheep Husbandry were deleted and the points provided for Matric with Science were increased from 40 to 55. Reference was made to the Rules governing post in J&K Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules), which provides for the qualifications for the post in question and the mode of recruitment. The same is 40% by way of promotion and 60% by way of direct recruitment. After the change in criteria, final select list was published in the newspaper on 17.09.2010. The name of the appellants did not figure therein.

4. The argument raised is that, the criteria laid down for selection could not be changed after the process for selection had already started, but in the case in hand, undisputedly the criteria was changed even after provisional select list was published in the newspaper. Idea was only to select the favourites, who could not make to the select list in terms of the criteria already notified. To buttress the arguments, reference was made to fresh advertisement issued on 23.01.2012 for recruitment to the same post, namely, Stock Assistant. In the selection criteria, marks were provided for Diploma in Sheep Husbandry. Meaning thereby that it was for the selection in question only that the criteria was changed after the process for selection had started.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that the selection process was completed only for Jammu Division, whereas for the posts advertised for Kashmir Division, selection was not finalized. It was further argued that there was nothing wrong with the criteria, as laid down initially as even for higher qualifications prescribed in the rules, namely, graduation, post-graduation also, extra marks had been provided. Hence, as Diploma in Sheep Husbandry was not the minimum qualification required for recruitment to the post, extra marks for that qualification had rightly been provided.

6. In support of her arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another; (2008) 3 SCC 512.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in other appeals adopted the arguments raised by the learned senior counsel.

8. I