The eligibility for ReT positions is contingent on actual residence in the village, as clarified by the added explanation to the Government order. The recommendations of the Village Level Committee must be considered, and engagement orders should align with the spirit of the ReT Scheme.

1. Letters patent Appeal on hand is directed against the writ Court Judgment dated 13th December, 2010 in SWP No. 351/2006, whereby writ petition has been dismissed and a candidate though actually not residing in the village, held eligible to be engaged as ReT under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme. The Appeal arises against the following backdrop.

2. Director School Education vide advertisement notice No. DSEJ/ReT/4811-17 dated 29th June, 2004, invited applications from the eligible candidates amongst others for the position of ReT in Middle School Babliana, Block Satwari. Sunita Rajput (hereinafter referred to as appellant in LPA (SW) No. 183/2010) and Renu Manhas (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5, in LPA(SW) No. 183/2010) were amongst the candidates who responded to the advertisement notice. How#31;ever, the appellant did not find place in the selection list and was not engaged against the advertised position. The respondents 1 to 4 instead selected/engaged, respondent No. 5 against the said post.

3. The appellant questioned selection and engagement of respondent No. 5, as ReT in the aforesaid School, primarily on the ground that respondent No. 5, as also other candidates shown ahead of the appellant in the panel were not residents of village Babliana and therefore, were not eligible for the advertised position. It was pleaded that respondent No. 5 was married outside village and her candidature was also opposed by Village Level Committee. The appellant in the said back#31;ground sought writ of certiorari quashing selection and engagement of respondent No. 5 as also writ of mandamus commanding official respondents to engage appellant against the aforesaid position.

4. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents on the grounds that though Village Level Committee objected to the inclusion of respondent No. 5, in the panel on the ground that she was not actually residing in village Babliana, the objection was overruled by the Director School Education-the authority competent to approve the panel and respondent No. 5 was, accordingly, engaged as ReT in Middle School Babliana.

5. The writ Court placing reliance on Judgments rendered in Javid Iqbal Lone v. State of J&K in LPA (SWP) 94/2005 decided on 3rd October, 2005, Ranjat Sharma v. State and Ors. 2005 (3) JKJ HC-434 in SWP No. 2014/2003 decided on 6th September, 2004, Dharamvir Singh v. State 2003 (3) JKJ HC-565 in SWP No. 363/2001, Gurdial Sharma v. State in LPA No. 131/2005 decided on 22nd December, 2006, held that a candidate from a village does not lose his right to be considered or ReT position, available in local School, merely on the ground that such candidate loes not actually reside in the village. Writ Court further held that the lady married outside the village would not be deprived of her right to be considered for ReT position available in the School of the village to which she belongs i.e. where she resided before her marriage.

6. The writ Court Judgment is questioned in Letters Patent Appeal No. 183 of 2010 on the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.

7. Smt. Rajni Sharma (hereinafter referred to as appellant in LPA (SW) 125/2009) and Smt. Parminder Kour (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 7 in LPA (SW) 125/2009), responded to the advertisement notice issued by the compe#31;tent authority, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for ReT position in Government Primary School, Haripur, Education Zone, Satwari. Though the appel#31;lant was empanelled and had merit higher than respondent No. 7, yet she was not engaged, as the Village Level Committee reported that the appellant was not actually residing in village Haripur and was married at village Alora, Panchayat, Sohanjana.

8. The appellant in LPA (SW) 125/2009, questioned order No. ZEO/S/RT/1181-82 dated 23.01.2004, whereby respondent No. 7 was engaged as ReT in Government Primary School, Haripur in SWP No. 1647/2004. The stand taken was that as the appellant had h