The Government of Jammu and Kashmir launched a scheme known as "Rehbar-e-Taleem" with the object of promoting, the decentralized management of elementary education with the community participation and involvement and to ensure accountability and responsiveness through a strong backup and supervision through the community, to operationalise effectively the schooling system at the grassroot level. Under the scheme provision for acquiring the services of the Teaching Guides (Teachers) in Primary and Middle schools to make up the deficiency of staff, has been made. 2. Pursuant to Govt. order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 regarding implementation of the scheme for ensuring functioning of these schools, applications were invited for appointed as "Rehbar-e-Taleem" for Government Middle school Kah, Tehsil Billawar. In response to the said notification the petitioner and respondents Nos. 5&6 applied and offered their services. The Zonal Education Officer Bhadu prepared a panel of candidates and on the basis of the merit obtained, respondents 5&6 along with two others were appointed and the petitioners was not appointed. The petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged the selection of respondents 5&6 as "Rehbar-e-Taleem". His challenge is two-fold(1) that respondent No. 5 being married out side the Village Kah, was not entitled to be appointed as under the scheme firstly those candidates who live in that particular village can be appointed and if no such candidate is available from that particular village, then the candidature of persons residing in adjoining villages can be considered. As against the appointment of respondent No. 6 the contention of the petitioner is that he does not possess the requisite qualifications and as such could not be legally appointed to the post under the scheme. Upon above two grounds learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection of respondents 5&6 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. The respondents in their objections have taken a categoric stand that the merit of the petitioner was very low as compared to the merit of respondents 5&6 who had secured 49% And 68% marks percentage in their qualifying examination i. e. 10+2 and therefore, the petitioner was not appointed. As far the challenge to the qualification of respondent No. 6 is concerned it is stated that it was 10+2. 4. As far the challenge to the qualification of respondent No. 6 is concerned it is stated that it was 10+2. 4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the challenge to the appointment of respondents 5&6 on the point of merit position has no basis. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that admittedly respondent No. 5, Mrs. Anjana Sharma, has been married out side the village and is residing at a distance of 30 K. Ms. from the Village in the school of which her appointment as "Rehber-e-Taleem" has been made. According to the learned counsel she cannot be said to be resident of that village after her marriage and, therefore, was not eligible for appointment under the scheme. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the question arising for consideration is whether a lady who is married out side a village of her birth is eligible for being appointed as "Rehber-e-Taleem" in the school in the village of her birth. Same question arose for consideration before this court in a case entitled Sanjay Kumar v. State of J&K, 2001(1) J&K Law Reporter page 141, and the Honble court held as under:- 7. The claims of the petitioner have been negatived merely on the ground that she is married to a person who is serving in the city of Jammu. The fact that she belongs to village Dhar Jankar is not disputed. "Merely because the petitioner is married to a person who is serving in Jammu City would not divest her or of her right to be considered in the village to which she belongs. The stand taken by the respondents in this regard is not apt. As a matter of fact, under similar circumstances in the case of Joginder Singh v. State through Commissioner-cum-Secretary 2000(3) SCTR 24. the view expressed is that merely because the lady marries in other district would not take away her right of appointment in the area to which she belongs. The ratio of the above judgement would apply to the facts of this case also. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to consider the claims of the petitioner by considering her residence to be village Dhar Jankar." 8. The ratio of the above judgement would apply to the facts of this case also. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to consider the claims of the petitioner by considering her residence to be village Dhar Jankar." 8. In view of the ratio of the above quoted judgement it is settled principle of law that merely because a lady is married in other village would not take away her right of appointment in the area to which she belongs. There is therefore, No merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.