1. In pursuance to Government Order No. 1771-Edu of 2003-04 dt. 30.12.2003, petitioners applied for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers in Middle School, Ekhala. Having remained unsuccessful, the petitioners have challenged the action of official respondents in selecting private respondents 5 to 7 as Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers in the aforementioned school. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.4 for extraneous considerations did not consult the local Village Level Committee and issued engagement orders in favour of private respondents without taking into consideration the mandate of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme (here-in-after called the Scheme). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belong to the village Ekhala, where the Middle School is located for which the engagements were to be made. The private respondents are said to be the residents of village Sounder. It is stated that both these villages i.e. Ekhala and Sounder belong to the same Educational Zone namely Marwah; that village Sounder is situated about 20 kms away from village Ekhala and has its own Panchayat and has an independent school; that in terms of the Scheme, the engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher can be made from amongst the candidates who belong to the area where the school concerned is located. It is thus submitted that the petitioners who are the residents of village Ekhala, where the school is located, had a preferential right over the private respondents who belong to a different village. 4. It is further stated that the Vice Sarpanch of the area had also represented before the authority concerned that the respondent No.4 has made the engagement of private respondents without consulting the Panchayat and Village Level Education Committee of Halqa Ekhala, but no action has been taken into the matter by respondents 1 to 3. A complaint is also said to have been filed before the Minister concerned, who referred the same to respondent No.2. It is, however, stated that no action so far has been taken by any of the higher authority. 5. Respondents 1 to 4 in their counter have stated that Ekhala is habitation of revenue village Sounder in Tehsil Kishtwar now Tehsil Marwah, and is not a village as alleged by the petitioners. It is, however, stated that no action so far has been taken by any of the higher authority. 5. Respondents 1 to 4 in their counter have stated that Ekhala is habitation of revenue village Sounder in Tehsil Kishtwar now Tehsil Marwah, and is not a village as alleged by the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners are also the residents of village Sounder from where the private respondents hail, and therefore, they cannot have any grievance so far as the selection of said respondents is concerned. It is stated that private respondents 5 to 7 were having better merit than the petitioners and it was on that basis keeping in view the inter-se merit of the said respondents-vis-a-vis the petitioners that the said respondents have been considered for engagement as RET teachers under the Scheme. It is stated that the selection has been made purely on merit basis by taking village Sounder as the revenue village. 6. Private respondents have also filed counter stating therein that the selection of said respondents has been made keeping in view their higher merit than the petitioners. It is stated that in terms of Government Order No. 563-Edu. Of 2005, dated 24th of Aug, 2005, a clarification has been made by the State Government that the word `village’ used in the Scheme formulated vide Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dt. 28th of April, 2000, would mean the `revenue village’, which in the present case is Sounder. It is stated that in terms of the Scheme, the engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers is to be made on the basis of revenue village and not a particular habitation and the private respondents being the residents of said revenue village Sounder have thus been considered for engagement as RET teachers on the basis of their better merit than the petitioners, and the said action on the part of official respondents has been rightly taken by them. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the Scheme shows that the Village Level Committee is to assess the requirement of teachers in the Primary/Middle schools within the area of their operation. The said Committee is to then draw a panel of eligible qualified persons from the village where the said schools are located. 7. A perusal of the Scheme shows that the Village Level Committee is to assess the requirement of teachers in the Primary/Middle schools within the area of their operation. The said Committee is to then draw a panel of eligible qualified persons from the village where the said schools are located. In case, the Village Level Committee finds that there is no local candidate available, then, it can draw the panel from the adjoining village. The panel so drawn by the Village Level Committee is to be submitted through the Zonal Education Officer to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, who along with a representative of Director School Education, has to make the final selection. So far as the formal order of appointment/engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem is concerned, the same is to be issued by the Zonal Education Officer concerned. 8. So far as the eligibility clause as prescribed in the Scheme is concerned, anyone seeking consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem, has to be a permanent resident of the State and he/she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff. In case, the Village Level Committee certifies that there is no local candidate available, then, as noticed above, it can draw the panel from the adjoining village. 9. A perusal of Scheme, thus, shows that there is only mention of word `village’ and any candidate belonging to a particular village where the school is located, has a preferential right of consideration for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem and in case, no such candidate is available from the local village, then the zone of consideration can be extended to adjoining villages. 10. It be further noticed that non explanation of word `village’ as used in the Scheme in clear terms and the selections made accordingly by the respondent authorities led to filing of number of petitions in this court. Certain clarifications in pursuance to some judgments passed by this court as also by the Division Benches came to be made by the State authorities. One such clarification/explanation give to the word `village’ as used in the Scheme has been made vide Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dt. 8th of April’09. The relevant extract of the explanation so given is as under:- "Village means a Revenue village. One such clarification/explanation give to the word `village’ as used in the Scheme has been made vide Government Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dt. 8th of April’09. The relevant extract of the explanation so given is as under:- "Village means a Revenue village. However, where habitations in a Revenue village are scattered, a candidate belonging to a habitation, popularly known as a village, at least, one Kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons, shall be entitled to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in a local School." 11. The aforementioned order has been issued by the Secretary to Government, Education Department. As to whether such explanation to the word `village’ has been given on the basis of some consultation with the concerned Revenue authorities who are expertise in this field or on the basis of any Revenue record, is not forthcoming from order dt. 8th of April’09. It would have been appropriate if the order in question would have given some basis to that extent but without expressing any opinion in this regard, the explanation so given has to be accepted as it is. The explanation given has been made effective prospectively. 12. It so transpires that vide Government order No.563-Edu of 2005 dt. 24th of Aug’05, it has been clarified that expression `village’ shall mean a `revenue village’. This explanation or clarification has been effected much after the appointment of private respondents was made. As on date, the selection was made, the definition of word `village’ was always construed as provided by the Scheme itself. 13. 24th of Aug’05, it has been clarified that expression `village’ shall mean a `revenue village’. This explanation or clarification has been effected much after the appointment of private respondents was made. As on date, the selection was made, the definition of word `village’ was always construed as provided by the Scheme itself. 13. While dealing with the above issue, a Division Bench of this court in the case reported as 2000 KLJ 668, State of J&K and ors v. Zahida Banoo, held as under:- "It goes without saying that cardinal principle of law is that as long as there is not ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the intent of the statute maker becomes impermissible and the statutes have to understood in their grammatical meaning." The phraseology employed in drafting the clause in explicit and admits no ambiguity in deducing that the word `village’ has to be understood in popular English parlance and such reading makes it clear that right of consideration for engagement flows to the State subjects belonging to the village where assessed deficiency exists and in absence of a local candidate to the inhabitants of the adjoining villages which is the only true interpretation and no other interpretation can be placed on the clause." 14. The Division Bench in the above case, ultimately, observed that the respondent authorities have tried to fiddle with the intent and purpose of the Scheme, which is not permissible. 15. Another Division Bench of this court in a case titled Gambhir Chand and anr v. Parbhat Singh and ors, LPASW No. 115/07, decided on 7th of March’09, while dealing with a similar nature of controversy and while interpreting the view taken in Zaida Banoo’s case (supra) observed as under:- "No doubt, in this case, the Deputy Commissioner contended that the village should be deemed to be revenue village and the Division Bench held that such contention is expansion of the definition of the word `village’, but ultimately concluded the matter by holding that the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the scheme did not have the power to do so, as would be evidenced from paragraph 9 of the reported judgment. No attempt was made, however, to indicate the difference between a village and a revenue village. Be that as it may, the said judgment being a Division Bench judgment is binding on us." 16. No attempt was made, however, to indicate the difference between a village and a revenue village. Be that as it may, the said judgment being a Division Bench judgment is binding on us." 16. The import of the aforementioned judgment clearly indicates that the judgment rendered in Zaida Banoo’s case, was held to be binding on it. What was also stated was that no attempt has been made in the aforementioned judgment to indicate the difference between a `village’ and a `revenue village’. The Division Bench ultimately concluded that order dt. 24th of Aug’05, which defines that word `village’ would include `revenue village’ was, infact, a clarification and not an amendment. It was further observed that as it is a clarification, it would always relate back as the intention is to clarify the things done in the past. However, the observation was made that the matters concluded could not be otherwise reopened. The interpretation given by the Division Bench in Ghambir Chand’s case, referred to above, was that the village as contemplated by the Scheme would be a `revenue village’ and not `village’. 17. The question which, however, was not considered by the Division Bench in the above case is that in absence of this explanation whether the official respondents could make the selection on the basis of revenue village when admittedly, the Scheme talked about the village and the Selection panel to be prepared by the Village level Committee. This issue has been clearly addressed by the earlier Division Bench in Zaida Banoo’s case, as already discussed supra. The categoric finding recorded is that in absence of any explanation or clarification being made by the State Government, the word `village’ would not include the `revenue village’. 18. This issue has been clearly addressed by the earlier Division Bench in Zaida Banoo’s case, as already discussed supra. The categoric finding recorded is that in absence of any explanation or clarification being made by the State Government, the word `village’ would not include the `revenue village’. 18. It may further be noted that order issued by the respondent State in 2009, referred to above, tries to explain the reasons for issuing such an order for the simple reason that if the habitations which constitute a revenue village are located beyond one kilometer, then for the purposes of selection, the habitation with 300 in-habitants would constitute a village and selection has to be made from within the said habitation, the underlining idea is to ensure that the vacancies are required to be filled from the locals in order to see that the candidate who is appointed being a local of the area remains present in the school which is what the policy envisages. In the present case, private respondents have been appointed by extending the definition of `village’ as `revenue village’ which could not have been done by the official respondents in view of the policy as also the definition of village as laid down in Zaida Banoo’s case (supra). The official respondents were required to make selection on the basis of policy as envisaged in the Scheme and not on the basis of clarification made in vide order dt. 24th of Aug’05, referred to above. I say so because the selection in this case was completed before issuance of Government order aforementioned. 19. One important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is regarding the permanent resident certificate issued by the authority concerned in favour of the petitioners as also the private respondents. All of them have been shown to the residents of village Sounder. To the same effect is the stand taken by the official respondents that both petitioners as also the private respondents belong to village Sounder. 20. The above aspect of the matter cannot be gone into by this court in absence of any record as to whether the permanent resident certificate is issued on the basis of revenue village or a particular habitation where one resides. Therefore, the petitioners as also the private respondents, in this regard would be free to approach the Tehsildar concerned, who shall clarify the said issue. 21. Therefore, the petitioners as also the private respondents, in this regard would be free to approach the Tehsildar concerned, who shall clarify the said issue. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1/ That the petitioners and private respondents shall approach the Tehsildar concerned who shall issue a certificate clarifying as to whether Permanent Resident Certificate is issued on the basis of Revenue village or the same is issued on the basis of particular habitation. The said clarification shall be issued by the aforesaid officer within a period of fifteen days from the date applications in this regard are filed before him by the petitioners and private respondents; 2/ That on receipt of clarification to the above effect, the same shall be furnished by the petitioners and private respondents to the respondent No.4. In case, on the basis of said clarification, it is established that the petitioners and the private respondents are the residents of village Ekhala where admittedly the school is located, then, the engagement of private respondents shall not be disturbed. 3/ That in case, on the basis of the certificates issued by the Tehsildar concerned, it is found that the petitioners belong to village Ekhala and not Sounder, in that eventuality, the official respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for their engagement against the available vacancy, if any, without disturbing the engagement of private respondents and this would be done within a period of four months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to respondent No.4 by the petitioners. However, in case, no vacancy is available, then in that eventuality, the appointment of private respondents shall stand quashed and the petitioners would be appointed against the said vacancies. 4/ That till the above issue is decided and appropriate orders are passed by the authority concerned, the engagement of private respondents shall continue which shall remain subject to the outcome of appropriate orders to be passed by respondent No.4 on the basis of information received by him from the revenue authority concerned. It would, however, be appropriate if the needful in this regard is done by the respondent No.4 within the period mentioned above. Disposed of accordingly.