Per Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Impugned is the Judgment passed by the Learned Writ Court on 22.2.2007, where under the panel in which appellant figured at S. No. 1 has been quashed and the respondents therein have been directed to make appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem as per the first panel, wherein respondent No.1 figured at S. No. 2. 2. For appreciating the matter in its right perspective it shall be quite advantageous to precisely notice the factual background. 3. The Government vide its order No. 396-Edu dated 28.4.2000 sanctioned the launching of the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem, interms whereof (Rehbar-e-Taleem) Teaching Guide were to be engaged. VLC(Village Level Committee) were to prepare the penal. 4. In consonance thereof advertisement came to be issued from the office of respondent No.5 in the year 2000, whereunder applications were invited for the engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers at village level and the applications were to be submitted to the Zonal Officers of the respective zone. In the process panel of three candidates i.e. appellant-respondent No.1 and of one Janko Devi was prepared for the vacancy as was to be filled in Primary School Jangwal. The said Janko Devi in order of merit figured at S. No. 1, so was engaged. 5. Respondent No.1 complained that said Janko Devi had produced a fake certificate which on inquiry was found to be correct, resultantly her selection and engagement as RET was cancelled vide order dated 23.10.2003 passed by respondent No.5. 6. Claim of the respondent No. 1 was that in the panel he figured at S. No.2, so when the selection and appointment of Janko Devi who figured at S. No. 1 was cancelled, in her place appellant should have been engaged. When he was not appointed the petition SWP No. 1297/04 was filed with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of teacher lying vacant in the Govt. School Jangwal, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu in view of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme." Learned writ court has allowed the said petition. The operative part of the Judgment is quoted hereunder: "In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000. School Jangwal, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu in view of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme." Learned writ court has allowed the said petition. The operative part of the Judgment is quoted hereunder: "In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000. The second panel Annexure R.8 shall stand quashed and appointment, if any, made on the basis of said panel shall also stand quashed. Respondents are directed to make the appointment/engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government School, Jangwal, Tehsil R.S. Pura, as per the first panel Annexure R.1. This would be done within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to respondents by the petitioner. Respondent-State, however, shall be at liberty to recover the above cost from ZEO concerned. Disposed of accordingly alongwith the connected CMPs, if any." 7. During the pendence of the petition it had been brought on record that fresh penal has been prepared, wherein appellant figures at S. No.1 and Ramesh Kumar respondent No.1 figure at S. No. 2. It has been noticed by the Learned writ court that at the time of advertisement of 2000 appellant was not possessing the requisite qualification. She has subsequently qualified 10+2 and it is in this backdrop Learned writ court quashed the said second penal marked as Annexure-R8 therein. The appellant not being the party to the said writ petition has been condemned unheard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Judgment is liable to be set aside on two counts. 1. That the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) has concealed the material facts ; 2. That the Judgment against the appellant has been passed when she was not a party to the writ petition, so condemned unheard. 9. The contentions of the Learned counsel have prevailing force, for the reasons to follow. The respondent (writ petitioner) has concealed an important fact i.e. after cancellation of appointment of Janko Devi in the year 2003, what has happened is that, vide Government order No. 1670 dated 24.11.2003, the process of filling up of vacancies of teachers in any school through the medium of RET scheme was stopped and by the same order it was provided that the posts created under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme (SSA) in newly upgraded Primary schools shall be filled up by the Directors of School Education. It is in terms of this order RET Scheme had come to an end, so a new Scheme of SSA was introduced. In terms whereof advertisement notice was issued from the office of Director School Education Jammu on 29.6.2004. Both appellant and respondent No.1 had responded, based on which the Village Level Committee on 6.5.2005 held a meeting, wherein two candidates i.e. the appellant and respondent No.1 were found to have applied for the engagement, so the penal i.e. second penal (Annexure-8) as referred in the impugned Judgment has been prepared, wherein appellant figure at S. No.1. It is not disputed, that in the year 2004 appellant had the requisite qualification of 10+2 and she had secured 46% marks, whereas respondent No. 1 had only 41.16 marks, so admittedly appellant was superior in merit and it is only because of that she figured at S. No. 1 in the panel (second panel) so prepared. 10. The respondent (writ petitioner) concealing the position of later development i.e. advertisement of the posts in the year 2004 under SSA Scheme and also concealing the fact of having applied in response to the said advertisement notice. Further while feeling inferior in merit has chosen to file writ petition claiming engagement on the basis of earlier penal (Penal-1) which was prepared under RET Scheme. In the process has approached the court with unclean hands. On this single count writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 11. By allowing the writ petition interest of the appellant got terribly effected, as the panel in which she figure at S. No. 1 stand quashed, when she was neither made party nor heard, which also renders the Judgment as unsustainable. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the objections has projected that RET Scheme was stopped in the year 2003, thereafter engagement of teachers was to be made in accordance with the SSA Scheme. While doing so, the procedure as prescribed for the RET Scheme was to be adopted and according to her it was only in upgraded Primary Schools under SSA, the posts were to be filled up. This position too has not been taken note of. 13. The Judgment impugned for the stated reasons is unsustainable, so is set aside. Respondent Nos. While doing so, the procedure as prescribed for the RET Scheme was to be adopted and according to her it was only in upgraded Primary Schools under SSA, the posts were to be filled up. This position too has not been taken note of. 13. The Judgment impugned for the stated reasons is unsustainable, so is set aside. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 shall be at liberty to finalize the process of Selection/engagement of teachers from the penal, as prepared for Government Primary School Jangwal Tehsil R.S. Pora, from amongst the candidates as figure in the penal prepared, wherein appellant figures at S. No.1. The finalization of the process shall be strictly in accordance with the Scheme in Vogue and the applicable rules. 14. Appeal accordingly succeeds.