JUDGMENT :

SINDHU SHARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, i.e. SWP No. 1264/2006, titled Nasreen Shamus vs. State of J&K & Ors.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the J&K Services Selection Recruitment Board (for short "SSRB"), issued Advertisement Notification No. 10 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005, inviting applications for selection to the posts of Teachers in various districts of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, including 66 posts of Teachers in District Kupwara. The said notification was published in the local daily newspaper "Roshini" on 05.01.2006. The break-up of the posts was as under:

3. The interviews for the eligible short-listed candidates from the applicants were conducted from 16.09.2006 to 22.09.2006, while interviews of shortlisted candidates handicapped category and shortlisted in the supplementary open merit list were conducted on 18.10.2006 at Dak Banglow, Kupwara. The respondent No. 1, did not figure in the list of short-listed candidates and consequently, was not called for interview.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the fact that she was denied participation in the interview process, respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing writ petition i.e. SWP No. 1264/2006. The respondent No. 1 sought a direction to the SSRB to conduct her interview for the post of Teacher advertised vide Notification No. 10 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005, primarily on the ground that she was not called for interview as the Selection Board has resorted to shortlisting to her detriment. This shortlisting, according to her, was not provided in the advertisement notice and has resulted in depriving her opportunity of consideration in the interview process and consequently, appointment for the post of Teacher in District Kupwara. The respondent No. 1, thus, in the writ petition, prayed the following reliefs:

“(I) Mandamus commanding the respondents Service Selection Board to conduct the interview of the petitioner for the advertised post of Teacher as per Advertisement Notification No. 10 of 2005.

(II) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court, deems fit and proper, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, be issued in favour of the petitioner against the respondents with costs.”

5. The learned writ Court, while issuing notice in the petition on 25.09.2006, permitted respondent No. 1 to appear in the interview at her own risk and responsibility subject to the condition that the interview process for the post in question was still in progress. She was eligible in terms of the applicable rules and norms and had actually applied for the post.

6. The writ petition was dismissed in default of appearance and interim directions were vacated on 03.02.2007. The petition was subsequently restored to its original number vide order dated 11.03.2009. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents-Board were directed to file a status report indicating the date on which the interviews for the post were conducted. This direction was issued in view of the interim order dated 25.09.2006, directing interview of the respondent No. 1.

7. The Chairman, JKSSRB in the status report filed in compliance to the order dated 15.10.2009 submitted that the interviews of shortlisted candidates were conducted on 16.09.2006 to 22.09.2006. The interviews of the handicapped category candidates and the candidates shortlisted under Open Merit were conducted on 18.10.2006. The interim order dated 25.09.2006 passed in SWP No. 1264/2006 was neither communicated to them nor did the respondent present herself with the order, therefore, the Board was not in a position to conduct her interview.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that this Court, after considering their contentions, had directed the official respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct her interview, but despite the