ORDER

Per Hon'ble Mr.D.S.Mahra, J.M.

The applicant has filed the present TA seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) MANDAMUS: A writ of Mandamus, be issued in favour of petitioner and against respondent No.2, commanding to forward recommendation to respondent No.1 in pursuance of selection of petitioners.

(ii) MANDAMUS: A writ of Mandamus, be issued in favour of petitioners and against respondent No. 1, commanding to act on recommendation of respondent No.2 and to issue order of appointment.

(iii) CERTIORARI: A writ of Certiorari be issued in favour of petitioners and against respondent No.2 for quashment of remarks column, of selection list to the extent of petitioners.

(iv) PROHIBITION: A writ of Prohibition be issued in favour of petitioners and against respondents restraining them from withdrawing selection list.

(v) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also issued in the given circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No.2 vide advertisement dated 24.12.2010 invited applications for the post of Food Inspectors. In the said notification qualification for the post was also prescribed. The applicants, possessing qualification prescribed and applied for the post. In the preliminary test the petitioners scored the points and were shortlisted for final test and viva voce.

After completion of the selection process, the select list was forwarded to respondent No. 1 vide order dated 21.4.2018. In the said select list the applicants were selected in Open Merit Category as well as RBA category. However, respondent No.2 withheld recommendation of these two candidates for the reason that the applicants were not possessing three months' training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work under Food & Health Authority or in any Institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government.

3. The applicants, submitted a representation clarifying non-availability of the qualification during pre-appointment process. The matter was referred to Controller of Drug and Food Control Organization and vide letter dated 8.8.2018, it was answered that three months satisfactory training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an Institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government was mandatory under Rule 8(c) of repealed Act i.e. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 (PFA in short) and PFA Rules 1955, for appointment of candidates to the post of Food Inspector. Respondent No. 1 directed respondent No.2 to take further necessary action in the matter with regard to the clarification obtained from Controller, Drug and Food Control Organization. Respondent No.2 has thus kept the matter pending without any fault of the applicants. Hence, the present TA by the applicants for direction to the respondents.

4. It is submitted by the applicants that while applying for the post of Food Inspector, they had submitted their certificates and testimonials. Respondent No.2 shortlisted them on the basis of individual merit and allowed them to sit for the final selection and also called them for viva voce, but did not recommend their names for appointment, which is bad in law.

5. The respondents in their counter affidavit, have stated that none of the rights of the applicants have been violated nor do they have any cause of action. It is submitted that J&K Services Selection Board being a selection agency is under obligation to carry out the selection & process in accordance with statutory provisions and recruitment rules and the answering respondent cannot relax or modify the prescribed qualification as mentioned in the rules. It is further submitted by the respondents that vide order dated 7.1.2010 respondent No.1 forwarded four posts of Food Inspector to the J&K Services Selection Board for filling up in accorda