The main legal point established is the entitlement to retrospective appointment and pecuniary benefits in cases of delay in engagement.

B.S. Walia, J.

Brief background of the case is that pursuant to Advertisement notice dated 13.6.2010 issued by respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 prepared a panel of candidates by taking into consideration Govt. Order No. 288-Kdu of 2009, dated 8.4.2009, in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 on the basis of her academic merit. So far as the candidate figuring at serial No. 2 namely Mohd. Arshad Khanday was concerned, the petitioner objected to the empanelment of respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was actually and physically residing in a different hamlet i.e. Upper Tandar, therefore, was not entitled for consideration and appointment against the said post. Objections filed by the petitioner were not decided, whereupon the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this court by way of SWP No. 310/2011, in which interim order dated 15.02.2011 was passed staying the selection process.

2. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Zonal Education Officer, Marwah, who had prepared the panel which had been impugned in SWP No. 310/2011, was transferred and posted as Chief Education Officer, Baramulla and his successor submitted report Annexure C, dated 11.05.2012 stating therein that the claim of the petitioner was genuine, as aforesaid Mohd. Arshad Khanday was actually and physically resident of Mohra Upper Tandar. Accordingly the petitioner filed CMA No. 1778/2012 in SWP No. 310/2011 and prayed for disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the report Annexure C, dated 11.05.2012 submitted by the ZEO, Marwah. CMA No. 1778/2012 was disposed of vide order dated 12.06.2012 with a direction that the pendency of the writ petition would not come in the way of the respondents considering the case of petitioner in terms of communication Annexure C, dated 11.05.2012 addressed by the ZEO, Marwah to CEO, Kishtwar. Pursuant thereto, the official respondents engaged the petitioner as ReT in Primary School, Lower Tander vide Annexure-E, dated 17.06.2013.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that it was due to the negligence and connivance of the then ZEO Marwah who inserted the name of Mohd. Arshad Khanday i.e. respondent No. 2 over and above the petitioner in the panel that the engagement of the petitioner as ReT got delayed and had there been no litigation, the petitioner would have been engaged as ReT in 2011 itself; that the petitioner's engagement as ReT was withheld due to the reasons mentioned above for which the petitioner contested a long drawn litigation, resultantly the petitioner got engaged as ReT in the year 2013 vide order Annexure E, dated 17.06.2013 and the process of her engagement got delayed from 04.08.2011 i.e. the date when the other candidates who had competed in selection process of Rets along with the petitioner, came to be appointed.

4. Learned counsel contends that the claim is covered in terms of order of this court Annexure G, dated 12.06.2015 in SWP No. 1809/2015. Relevant extract of the decision relied upon is reproduced hereunder:

"In view of the circumstances leading to the delay in engagement of petitioner on account of filing of SWP No. 1058/2009 by one Ms. Rajinder Kour which was dismissed on account of her not being eligible, petitioners claim for giving retrospective effect to his engagement with effect from 28.10.2009 needs consideration. Admittedly, the delay has not been occasioned on account of any fault attributable to the petitioner.

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing that the respondents shall accord due consideration to the case of petitioner for giving effect to the engagement of petitioner w.e.f. 28.10.2009 i.e. date when the other candidates figuring in the list were engaged and the petitioner could not be engaged on account of litigation resorted to by Ms. Rajinder Kour"

5. Aforementioned decision is claimed to be distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case. Learned AAG states that the matter is in fact covered by a decision of the