The court balanced the legal right accrued to the writ petitioners with the equitable relief to the appellants, considering the appointments in Udhampur District.

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. 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. T