1. On consideration all the three petitions are admitted to hearing and at request, taken up for final disposal. 2. Ms. Naza Banoo D/O Abdul Ahad Malik R/O Qasba Khull, Tehsil Kulgam, petitioner in SWP No. 106/2007, who figures as respondent No.8 in SWP No. 153/2007 and respondent No.6 in SWP No.386/2007, responded to an advertise­ment notice issued by Zonal Education Officer, DH Pora, on 26.11.2001 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for engagement as ReT in Girls School, Khul. Ms. Naza Banoo, was selected and vide order No. ZDHP 635-36 dated 03.12.2001 engaged as ReT in aforesaid school on a monthly honorarium of Rs.1500/-for a period of one year. Ms. Naza Banoo after serving the department in the said capacity for a period of five years claimed regularization of her services with effect from 04.12.2006 i.e. the date when she completed five years as ReT. The claim laid by Ms. Naza Banoo for regularization of service, however, got delayed due to an enquiry initiated on complaint of one Nissar Ahmad Malik (Sh. Malik, hereafter), petitioner in SWP No.153/2007, questioning her initial engagement. Sh. Malik complained that he was not considered for his engagement as ReT in said school, notwithstanding his superior merit as against the merit of Ms. Naza Banoo. 3. The Deputy Chief Education Officer, Anantnag with HQ at Kulgam, en­trusted with the enquiry, found Ms. Naza Banoo, not entitled to be engaged as ReT and concluded that one Nayeema Akhter, having qualification of B.A, B.Ed., and higher merit though not empanelled by the Zonal Education Officer, D.H. Pora, deserved to be engaged as ReT and that on surrendering her right, the candidate next in the order of merit was to be engaged against the advertised post. 4. Ms. Naza Banoo, in SWP No.106/2007 assails the enquiry report No.DCEO/K/2426-30/07 dated 15.01.2007 on the grounds pleaded in the petition. Ms. Naza Banoo, while seeking quashment of the aforestated enquiry report also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize her services as Teacher with effect from 04.12.2006. 5. Sh. Malik, petitioner in SWP No.153/2007, questions initial engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo, on the ground that Ms. Naza Banoo, having secured only 241 out of 600 marks in 10+2 examination, was far inferior in merit to the other empanelled candidates. It is urged that though an objection to engagement of Ms. 5. Sh. Malik, petitioner in SWP No.153/2007, questions initial engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo, on the ground that Ms. Naza Banoo, having secured only 241 out of 600 marks in 10+2 examination, was far inferior in merit to the other empanelled candidates. It is urged that though an objection to engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo was taken by him and other candidates well in time, the official respondents avoided to take any effective steps to set right their grievances and it was only after the State Vigilance Organization swung into action that an enquiry was directed vide No. CEO/A/IMW/30913/06 dated 22.11.2006 and Deputy Chief Education Officer, Anantnag/Kulgam, entrusted with the enquiry. It is pleaded that the enquiry officer after a thorough probe vide report bearing No. DCEO/K/2426-30/07 dated 15.01.2007 found Ms. Naza Banoo to have been engaged as ReT in Girls School, Khul, in violation of rules and regulations. Sh. Malik claiming to have higher merit as against Ms. Naza Banoo-respondent No.8 in the petition, lays claim to his engagement as ReT in said school in place of. Ms. Naza Banoo. Sh. Malik, on the basis of the averments made, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the select list dated 26.11.2001 as also the engagement order in favour of Ms. Naza Banoo. Sh. Malik also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to engage him having regard to his merit position as reflected in the panel prepared by the official respondents. 6. Sh. Ajaz Ahmad Malik (petitioner in SWP No.386/2007) also aggrieved of selection/engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo, questions her selection on the grounds that he having higher merit (279 out of 600 marks) in 10+2 examination as against 241 out of 600 marks obtained by Ms. Naza Banoo, has a preferential right to be engaged as ReT in Girls School, Khul. 7. Ms. Naza Banoo, in her reply to SWP 153/2007, has opposed the case set-up on the grounds that Sh. Malik slept over the matter for five long years and the petition was liable to be dismissed on account of un-explained delay, that Sh. Malik initially not ready to serve on honorarium of Rs.1500 abandoned his claim to be engaged as ReT and developed interest only after the provision was made for regularization of services of ReTs after their satisfactory completion of five years service in said capacity. Malik initially not ready to serve on honorarium of Rs.1500 abandoned his claim to be engaged as ReT and developed interest only after the provision was made for regularization of services of ReTs after their satisfactory completion of five years service in said capacity. It is insisted that as the scheme was devised to engage and boost female education and provide a female teacher in Girls School, Khul, Ms. Naza Banoo was rightly picked up by the Village Level Committee for the job and recommended for being engaged as ReT. The Deputy Chief Education Officer, Anantnag/Kulgam, is said to have conducted enquiry at her back and the enquiry report claimed to be devoid of any basis. 8. Ms. Naza Banoo has opposed SWP No.386, in addition to the grounds pleaded in reply to SWP No.153/2007, on the ground that as Ajaz Ahmad Malik, did not apply for the advertised post, he has no locus to maintain the writ petition and question engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo. 9. The official respondents in reply to writ petition of Naza Banoo, have taken the stand that a right has accrued to her to be regularized as teacher and that the recommendations for her regularization though having been forwarded by Zonal Education Officer, D.H. Pora, vide communication No.ZDHP/2180/06 dated 23rd of February, 2006, was put on hold in wake of the litigation regarding her initial engagement as ReT. It is insisted that initial engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo has not been challenged by any candidate having a competing interest with her and that her engagement and regularization was thus beyond challenge. 10. The official respondents in reply to SWP No.153/2007 while admitting that Sh. Malik applied for the vacancy/post in question, and found place at Sr. No.5 in the panel prepared, resist the petition on the ground of inordinate delay on part of Sh. Malik in projecting his claim. The official respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay left unexplained by Sh. Malik. 11. The official respondents have not filed any response in SWP No.386/2007. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 13. Malik in projecting his claim. The official respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay left unexplained by Sh. Malik. 11. The official respondents have not filed any response in SWP No.386/2007. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 13. From perusal of the available record and also the stand taken by the official respondents in reply to SWP No.106/2007 and 3/2007, it transpires that applica­tions to fill the vacancy of ReT were invited vide advertisement notice No.643-A/GMSK/01 dated 26.11.2001 and the minimum qualification prescribed was 10+2 (12th pass). The last date for receipt of applications was fixed 26.11.2001 itself and in all, ten candidates including Ms. Naza Banoo and Sh. Malik (petitioners in SWP Nos. 106/2007 and 153/2007 respectively) responded to the advertisement notice. The respondents prepared the panel of the candidates on 27.11.2001 in presence of the Village Level committee and the panel was submitted to Chief Education officer, Anantnag. All the empanelled candidates with the sole exception of Sh. Farooq Ahmad Bhat had 10+2 qualification. Ms. Naza Banoo having obtained 241 marks in 10+2 examination, though at the bottom of the panel i.e. Sr. No. 10, was nonethe­less selected vide order No. 617-29/ST dated 29.11.2001 and thereafter engaged as ReT in Girls School, Khul, vide No. ZDHP 635-36 dated 03.12.2001. It is admitted position of the parties that while Sh. Farooq Ahmad Bhat having passed 2nd year B. A, occupied first position in the panel, Sh. Shameem Ahmad Malik with 338 marks in 10+2 examination was second in the panel and first in order of the merit amongst candidates with 10+2 qualification. Sh. Malik (petitioner in SWP No. 153/2007) with 269 marks figured at S.No.5 and as already said, Ms. Naza Banoo with 241 marks at Sr.No.10 in the panel. It is thus beyond any dispute that Naza Banoo had far inferior merit as against Sh. Malik. Even if it is assumed that only a woman candidate was to be picked up, though there is no stipulation in the advertisement notice to the said effect, it is Ms. Muneera Banoo, at Sr. No. 04 with 311 marks in 10+2 examination who has higher merit as against Mst. Naza Banoo. The selection of Ms. Malik. Even if it is assumed that only a woman candidate was to be picked up, though there is no stipulation in the advertisement notice to the said effect, it is Ms. Muneera Banoo, at Sr. No. 04 with 311 marks in 10+2 examination who has higher merit as against Mst. Naza Banoo. The selection of Ms. Naza Banoo and subsequent engagement vide order No. ZDHP 635-36 dated 03.12.2001 as ReT in girls School, Khul, is in the circumstances made in disregard of merit, against law and in violation of fundamental rights of the candidate(s) who were ignored despite having superior merit as against that of Ms. Naza Banoo. 14. It is in the said background that objections were raised to engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo and complaints addressed to the Chief Education Officer, An­antnag, and State Vigilance Organization and Chief Education Officer, Anantnag vide No. CEO/A/IMW/30913/06 dated 22.11.2006 in wake of State vigilance Organization communication No. SVO-Edu-G-178/06/325 dated 11/2006, di­rected enquiry into the matter and Sh. A.R. Shah, the then Dy. Education Officer with headquarter at Kulgam, was entrusted with the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had no difficulty in laying bare the facts as the irregularity was writ large on the selection record. The Enquiry Officer found Zonal education Officer to have com­mitted grave irregularity by not including Nayeema Akhter, Hilal Ahamad Malik and Aijaz Ahamad Malik (petitioner in SWP No. 386/2007) having higher qualifi­cation/merit in the list of available candidates. The Enquiry officer further found that the panel was submitted to the selection committee comprising of District Development Commissioner, Anantnag, and Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, and that the committee on 27.11.2001 selected Naza Banoo, ignoring all other nine meritorious candidates including Sh. Malik. The Committee was found to have surprisingly taken decision on 26th of November 2001 to select Ms. Naza Banoo with lowest merit when the panel itself was prepared on 27th of November, 2001. However, while the matter was being enquired into, all the candidates in the panel with the sole exception of Sh. Malik (petitioner in SWP No. 153/2007) signified their intention to surrender their respective claims to the position of ReT in dispute, in Girls School, Khul. Sh. Malik. In the circumstances, is the only candidate with merit higher than that of Ms. Naza Banoo, to have projected his claim to the vacancy in question. 15. Malik (petitioner in SWP No. 153/2007) signified their intention to surrender their respective claims to the position of ReT in dispute, in Girls School, Khul. Sh. Malik. In the circumstances, is the only candidate with merit higher than that of Ms. Naza Banoo, to have projected his claim to the vacancy in question. 15. The grounds urged to assail the enquiry report, whereby irregularities committed while selecting Ms. Naza Banoo with lowest merit, have been unraveled, are bereft of any merit. The enquiry officer has placed exclusive reliance on the official record and drawn conclusions on an objective and unbiased perusal of such record. The outcome of enquiry cannot thus be labeled as erroneous, biased, subjective or violative or principles of natural justice. 16. Learned counsel for Ms. Naza Banoo, realizing futility of challenge to enquiry report lays stress on the failure of Sh. Malik to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court, with adequate dispatch. It is insisted that Sh. Malik, slept over the matter for five long years and his challenge to selection and engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo, was to fail on the ground of delay and laches. It is urged that Ms. Naza Banco, having rendered service for more than five years on the date of filing of SWP No.153/2007 and recommended for regularization as a General Line Teacher, it would not be in the interests of justice to dislodge her at this stage. As Sh. Malik, did not find it necessary to question selection and engagement of Ms. Naza Banoo, as ReT for five long years, it is urged, Sh. Malik has lost his right to assail selection of Ms. Naza Banoo, or lay a claim to the post in question. 17. Learned counsel for Sh. Malik on the other hand insists that his client in SWP No.153/2007 having all along projected his grievance before the higher ups in the department and thereafter State Vigilance Organization, cannot be accused of having slept over the matter or held guilty of gross negligence. It is pointed out that Sh. Malik has been vigilant in reporting gross violation of rules in making the selection for the post of Ret in Girls School, Khul, and done what could reasonably be expected of an aggrieved person of his resources and background. 18. It is pointed out that Sh. Malik has been vigilant in reporting gross violation of rules in making the selection for the post of Ret in Girls School, Khul, and done what could reasonably be expected of an aggrieved person of his resources and background. 18. Learned counsel for parties, to buttress their arguments, place reliance on law laid down in (1) AIR 1981 SC 1495 , (2) AIR 1990 SC 10 , (3) 2001 (1) SCC 240 and (4) Ab. Rashid Sofi v. State & Ors. 2010 (2) JKJ 114 (HC), AIR 2008 SC 2723 , AIR 1974 SC 259 . 19. It is well settled, that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Courts are to be slow in exercising writ jurisdiction, which is essentially equitable and discretionary in nature, and refuse its exercise, where the party invoking such jurisdiction is guilty of gross negligence or delay. Delay or laches has over the time come to be accepted as a relevant factor for a court of law, to determine the question as to whether the case projected by an applicant deserves consideration. The court in exercise of its discretion, it has been held, must not ordinarily assist tardy and indolent or the acquiescent and lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the aggrieved, and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the relief sought may be declined. It has been authoritatively laid down that omission or negligence on the part of the aggrieved party to assert his right taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the opposite party and even where fundamental right is violated, the matter is still within the discretion of the court. The discretion, of course, it has been held, has to be exercised judiciously and reasonably. 20. It is however pertinent to point out that the rule to decline consideration to a belated claim on the grounds of laches is not a rule of law but a rule of practice to guide proper exercise of discretion. It has been held that there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the court must necessarily refuse the relief. It has been held that there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the court must necessarily refuse the relief. The rule of practice has its edifice on the principle that the rights which may have accrued to others by a reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed in absence of reasonable explanation for the delay. The petitioner, alleg­ing violation of fundamental rights, is expected to move the court before other rights come into existence. A reference in this regard is made to AIR 1970 SC 898 , AIR 1974 SC 259 . 21. The following obser\ ations of Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong, Hurd, (1874) 5 PC 221 quoted with approval in Moon Mills Ltd v. M. R. Meher AIR 1967 SC 1450 , Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service AIR 1969 SC 329 and in Shiv Das v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274 , sums up the principle on the subject: "Now the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy where afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equita­ble. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy." 22. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy." 22. In Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 259 , a writ petition filed after a delay of more than 10 years was resisted on the ground of laches. The Supreme Court rejecting the preliminary objection held: "There was a delay of more than ten or twelve years in filing the petition since the accrual of the cause of complaint and this delay, contended the respondents, was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any relief in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. We do not think this conten­tion should prevail with us... there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each case must depend on its own facts.....There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit.... it will depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose". The court further observed, "the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel in the qui vive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like." 23. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2008 SC 2723 , where the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and appeal against writ court judgment was also dismissed, the Supreme Court held: "The writ petition as well as writ appeal ought not to have been dismissed by the Division Bench as well as the Singh Judge of the High Court on the ground of delay and laches because the delay of 4 years in moving the writ application against the decision of the State Government was sufficiently explained by the appellant - writ petitioner. Since the appellant writ peti­tioner filed a representation/review of the decision of the State Govern­ment it was expected by her that an order should be passed on the said representation/review. The High Court committed an error in holding that the pendency of the review/representation of the appellant-writ petitioner could not be taken to be a ground for condoning the delay after 4 years of the decision of the State Government." 24. In case in hand what emerges from the pleadings and the record is that the respondent No.4 issued the advertisement notice inviting applications for the post of ReT in Girls School, Khul, on 26.11.2001 and fixed the date of issuance of advertisement notice as the last date of receipt of the applications and proceeded to prepare the panel of the candidates on 27th of November, 2001 followed by selection list on 29th of November, 2001 and the impugned engagement order in favour of Ms. Naza Banoo on 3rd of December, 2001. The committee comprising of District Development Commissioner and Chief Education Officer, shockingly selected Ms. Naza Banco when the process of preparation of the select list was yet to be completed. The respondents 3 and 4 and the District Development Commissioner acting in unison selected Ms. Naza Banco admittedly at the bottom of the list in the order of merit, having no right to be considered in presence of other nine more meritorious candidates. The process of selection in question was thus marred by illegality and flagrant violation of rules from its very inception. The respondents 3 and 4 acting in collaboration with the then District Development Commissioner threw all the rules to winds while making the selection and in the process brazenly and with least sense of accountability and respect for law violated the fundamental rights of more meritorious candidates. Sh. Malik, one of such candidates, vowed to embark on a struggle, however long drawn, to fight against the injustice and pursued it steadfastly when all other meritorious candidates felt tired or lost the hope in the system. Sh. Malik as is evident from the record, first of all after raising his voice against injustice, though unsuccessfully, approached the respondents with a request to issue duplicate (copies of) documents that weighed with the respon­dents to appoint someone who was at Sr.No.10 and ignore a candidate who was at Sr.No.l in the order of merit. Sh. Sh. Malik as is evident from the record, first of all after raising his voice against injustice, though unsuccessfully, approached the respondents with a request to issue duplicate (copies of) documents that weighed with the respon­dents to appoint someone who was at Sr.No.10 and ignore a candidate who was at Sr.No.l in the order of merit. Sh. Malik in his application impressed upon the authorities that he and other candidates would not be in a position to project their grievance before the higher authorities unless copies are provided to them. The application was duly forwarded on 20.03.2002 by the Headmaster concerned to the Zonal Education Officer. Sh. Malik and other unemployed youth thereafter ap­proached the District Development Commissioner, Anantnag, with a complaint against the Zonal Education Officer, D.H.Pora, alleging, what they called fraudu­lent appointment of Ms. Naza Banoo. Sh. Malik in his application received by the District Development Commissioner on 10.12.2001 complained: "Since from that date (date of appointment of Naza Banoo) we approached to the then D. C. (G.A. Peer) but he has not taken any interest in solving this matter. Then after his transfer the then new D.C (B. A. Runiyal) also keeps us in black and whites." 25. The District Development Commissioner, Anantnag, forwarded the appli­cation (annexure-Bl to SWP No.153/2007) to S.P. Vigilance for necessary action under law "immediately". Sh. Malik, thereafter, pursued the matter before the State Vigilance Organization and it was only when the State Vigilance Organization, after enquiring into the matter addressed a communication to the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, that enquiry was initiated, Sh. Malik and others got associated with enquiry to dig out the facts and lay bare the irregularity committed by Deputy Commissioner, Chief Education Officer and Zonal Education Officer, DH Pora in selection of Ms. Naza Banoo. 26. Sh. Malik against the backdrop of above summarized facts and events cannot be said to have slept over the matter or held to have been tardy, indolent or lethargic in pursuing the matter. Once the enquiry was concluded and the stand of Sh. Malik and other unemployed youth of Village Khul vindicated, Sh. Malik was emboldened to approach this court with the writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this court. 27. The course of events between the appointment of Ms. Naza Banco and filing of writ petition reveal that Sh. Once the enquiry was concluded and the stand of Sh. Malik and other unemployed youth of Village Khul vindicated, Sh. Malik was emboldened to approach this court with the writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this court. 27. The course of events between the appointment of Ms. Naza Banco and filing of writ petition reveal that Sh. Malik all along, tirelessly made incessant and strenuous effort to seek justice and secure his rights. 28. The question that assumes importance in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether an aggrieved, who decides to get his grievances addressed by approaching the administrative machinery of the State, can be held guilty of laches only because he decides to have recourse to litigation, not as first, but last resort. In case an aggrieved person who relentlessly struggles for securing his rights before the Government functionaries or "grievance redressal mechanism" if any in place, is notwithstanding his efforts held guilty of laches only because he has not as first option resorted to litigation, a signal will go that all those aggrieved with govern­ment action or inaction should as a first option flock to the court. 29. This in my opinion would not be in tune with the constitutional goal of securing justice in all its manifestations to one and all, as also the contemporary realities. We all know that the problem our Justice Delivery System confronts is not one of "litigation explosion" but of "litigation exclusion". In other words, the problem is not that too many people rush to courts to secure their rights resulting in increase in litigation but that large number of the aggrieved-downtrodden, marginalized and disempowered, because of lack of resources, laws' delays and ever increasing litigation costs do not as a first response turn to courts for redressal of their grievances but prefer to voice their grievances before higher ups in the administration with the hope that they may not be pushed to unending litigation and land in a realm of uncertainty. The effort, in the said background, must be to prompt, persuade and encourage the respondent State to strengthen and hone-up grievance redressal mechanism and one of the ways to achieve the object is not to downplay, ignore or go disprized effort made by an aggrieved person to project his case against an administrative lapse or irregularity before the higher ups in the administration and not to hold him guilty of laches. 30. So viewed, Sh. Malik in the present case cannot be held to have approached the court after inordinate and unexplained delay, to have been indolent and acquiescent or to have waived his right. 31. Ms. Naza Bano cannot draw support from law laid down in AIR 1981 SC 1495 , AIR 1990 SC 10 , 2000 (1) SCC 240 for the reason that all these cases involve failure of an employee to question promotion of a fellow employee, with reasonable dispatch. The case of a government employee possessed of sufficient means, aware of his rights, sleeping over his right to throw challenge to promotion against rules of another employee, cannot be treated at par with that of an unemployed, dis­empowered, downtrodden youth belonging to a far-flung area, as in the present case. Again case reported as Ab. Rashid Sofi v. State & Ors. 2010 (2) JKJ 114 (HC) cannot be pressed into service by Ms. Naza Bano to claim that even if her selection is tainted with irregularity, she because of efflux of time may be allowed to continue and respondents directed to consider appointment of Shri Malik against available post. In the reported case the post of ReT was available against which the aggrieved was directed to be engaged. In the present case, as emphatically, stated by Mr. Kawoosa Ld. Addl. Advocate General, there is not post available against which Shri Malik can be considered for appointment. 32. The only case set up by Ms. Naza Banco in opposition to the petition filed by Sh. Malik i.e. one of laches must in the facts and circumstances of the case fail. The delay in filing the writ petition is adequately and convincingly explained. In case Sh. 32. The only case set up by Ms. Naza Banco in opposition to the petition filed by Sh. Malik i.e. one of laches must in the facts and circumstances of the case fail. The delay in filing the writ petition is adequately and convincingly explained. In case Sh. Malik's petition is thrown out on the ground of laches, it is not only that beneficiary of gross irregularity shall be allowed to reap and enjoy fruits of fraud, committed on the meritorious candidates but, given pleasure to have the last laugh, notwithstanding merit and substance in the case set up by Sh. Malik and an illegality perpetuated. 33. It is admitted case of Shri Ajaz Ahmad Malik - petitioner in SWP No.386 of 2007 that he did not apply for the post of ReT Girls School Khul and did not compete with Ms. Naza Bano. Shri Malik and others, and was not part of the selection process. Shri Ajaz Ahmad Malik, consequently, does not find place in the panel of 10 candidates prepared by the Zonal Education Officer, D.H.PORA. The petitioner questions the mode and manner in which selection process was initiated. The grounds urged, however, are belied by the facts emerging from the record. The fact that as many as 10 candidates applied for the advertised position is by itself indicative of publicity, though at the local level, given to the advertisement notice. 34. For the reasons discussed above, SWP No. 153/2007 is allowed with costs, assessed at Rs.30,000/- to be paid by/recovered from the then District Development Commissioner, Anantnag, Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, and Zonal Educa­tion Officer, D.H.Pora (respondents 3, 4 and 6) in equal shares. The selection and consequent engagement order No.ZDHP 635-36 dated 03.12.2001 in favour of Ms. Naza Banoo, is quashed. 35. The respondents shall proceed with the selection process afresh from the stage the panel of all the aspirants for the post of ReT in Girls School, Khul, was prepared wherein Sh. Malik and Ms. Naza Banoo figure at Sr. Nos. 5 and 10 and thereafter make selection of the candidate for the post in question, on the basis of merit and issue engagement order in his/her favour. The process shall be completed as far as possible within two weeks from the date the copy of this order is served/made available to the official respondents. 36. Nos. 5 and 10 and thereafter make selection of the candidate for the post in question, on the basis of merit and issue engagement order in his/her favour. The process shall be completed as far as possible within two weeks from the date the copy of this order is served/made available to the official respondents. 36. The Registrar Judicial, High Court wing Srinagar shall take steps to identify the officers who manned the post of District Development Commissioner An­antnag, Chief Education Officer Anantnag and Zonal Education Officer D.H.Pora (respondents 3,4 and 6) during the period in question (from 26th November 2001 to 3.12.2001 - both inclusive) and require the officers to deposit the costs of Rs.10,000/- each. On deposit, the amount be released in favour of Shri Nisar Ahmad Malik - petitioner in SWP No.153/2007. SWP Nos. 106/2007 and 386/2007, are dismissed with connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.