The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for clarity in the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme to avoid unnecessary litigation and compromised merit due to the restrictive zone of consideration.

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.11.2015 passed in SWP No. 842/2015 titled Manaz Akhter v. State of J&K and others.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that in response to the advertisement notice dated 03.09.2011, the appellant along with others including respondent No.6 submitted their application forms for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Science) in Govt. Middle School, Pattuwali, Shindra. The select panel was prepared in which the appellant was not considered. The appellant approached the Writ Court by way of SWP No.20/2013 which was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.11.2013, thereby directing the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch to decide as to whether the selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem (Science) stream in Govt. Middle School, Puttuwali, Shindra Tehsil Haveli was required to be made in terms of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 or not. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Writ Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch conducted the enquiry after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.6 respectively and ultimately vide its report dated 19.02.2015 concluded that the Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 was not applicable to the case of the appellant. It is this report which was assailed by the appellant in SWP No.842/2015.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that in the first round of litigation the Writ Court while disposing of SWP No.20/2013 vide order dated 25.11.2013 had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch to considered the issue as to whether the selection had to be made on habitation basis in terms of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 or not and that the Deputy Commissioner vide its report dated 19.02.2015 after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties concluded that the provisions of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 were not applicable. Accordingly, the official respondents proceeded to make the selection on the basis of revenue village.

4. The plea of the appellant that the report was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner without affording adequate opportunity to her was rightly rejected by the Writ Court, for, before the Deputy Commissioner the appellant was well represented by her counsel and, therefore, had no occasion to allege that she had not been heard in the matter. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Writ Court, the appellant has come up before us in this appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment impugned. The directions to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct enquiry with regard to the applicability of Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 were issued at the instance of the appellant in a writ petition filed by him. The Deputy Commissioner, as is apparent from the report, provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant as well as respondent No.6 who were represented by their counsel. After threadbare discussion and taking note of the submissions made before him and the record made available, the Deputy Commissioner rightly concluded that the Government Order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 was not applicable in the case.

6. The Writ Court rightly did not find any infirmity in the report prepared by the Deputy Commissioner. Confronted with the aforesaid position, the learned counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to set up a new case before us and contended that the empanelment of respondent No.6 for selection is, otherwise, not sustainable as respondent No.6 is not actually residing in the revenue village Shindra where the school in question is located.

7. On being pointedly asked as to whether