1. Advertisement Notification dated December 2, 2009 was issued by Zonal Education Officer, H.C. Gam, Kulgam and was published on December 3, 2010 in a daily newspaper wherein and whereunder applications were invited for filling up of two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem, besides other two schools, in Bonpora, Gadihama as well. The basic qualification was 10+2. The zone of eligibility was prescribed to be revenue village and applications alongwith all testimonials were to be submitted within ten days from the date of publication of the advertisement notification. It was also provided in the said notification that the last date for filing of applications shall also be the cut off date for determining merit/qualification/el­igibility. The petitioners and private respondents responded to the said notification. After the process of selection was initiated by the official respondents, petitioners instituted civil suit before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Kulgam, in which it was prayed that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents declaring therein that the petitioners, being meritorious candidates and residents of Bonapora, Gadihama, are entitled for being selected and engaged as Rehbar-e-Taleem (for short ReT) under ReT Scheme for newly sanctioned primary schools at Bonapora, Gadihama. It was also prayed that by issuance of decree of Mandatory injunction, defendants 3 and 4 be directed to adhere to the Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. Notice has been issued in this suit. 2. When the official respondents did not proceed with the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement notice, private respondents filed writ petition (SWP) no. 181/2010 praying therein that by issuance of writ of Mandamus, respon­dents be directed to complete the process of selection/engagement initiated in terms of the aforementioned advertisement notification. Further relief is sought that official respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for their engagement on the two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem. It is also prayed that by issuance of writ of Mardamus, official respondents be restrained from implementing the Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. Notice was issued in this writ petition. After the merit panel was prepared by the Village Education Com­mittee, tentative selection list was published. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the tentative selection list, the persons who have instituted civil original suit filed SWP no. Notice was issued in this writ petition. After the merit panel was prepared by the Village Education Com­mittee, tentative selection list was published. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the tentative selection list, the persons who have instituted civil original suit filed SWP no. 831/2010 wherein they have prayed for quashment of selection of private respondents 6 & 7 as Rehbar-e-Taleem published in a daily newspaper on 13.04.2010. Further relief is sought that the respondents be directed not to act upon the tentative selection list till such time the issue is resolved by the civil court. Notice was issued in this case also. 4. When these petitions were being considered, it was deemed appropriate to summon the record from the civil court also. The record has been received. 5. The respondents have filed their reply affidavit/objections in SWP no. 831/2010. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 7. Mr. M.A. Wani, learned counsel for the petitioners, initially submitted that the Government order no. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case, so the official respondents are duty bound to implement the said Government order and make selection/engagement of ReTs on the basis of the said Government order. 8. The said Government order provides that where a village comprises of many habitations and one habitation is located at a distance of one kilometer away from other habitation and is inhibited by 300 souls, then, if the school/posts are sanc­tioned for that habitation, in such eventuality, the candidates of that habitation alone will be eligible for seeking consideration for being selected and engaged as ReTs. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to two documents in order to show that the said Government order is applicable and the private respondents are to be excluded from the zone of consideration. 10. The documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would show that the village Bonhama, Gadihama is divided by a road having 20 ft. width and that the Bonpora habitation is inhibited by less than 300 souls. 10. The documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would show that the village Bonhama, Gadihama is divided by a road having 20 ft. width and that the Bonpora habitation is inhibited by less than 300 souls. In both these circumstances, prima facie, the said Government order is not applicable and the selection/engagement is to be made in accordance with the terms and conditions as prescribed in the advertisement notice which would mean that all the candidates from the revenue village Gadihama are eligible to seek consideration for being selected and engaged as ReTs in accordance with the scheme and mandate of Government orders. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the graduation certificate of peti­tioner no. 2 has not been entertained and considered by the official respondents which act has prejudiced petitioner no. 2. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, on this score also, falls flat on the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification itself. The advertisement notification dated December 2,2009 was published in the newspaper on December 3,2009. The application forms were to be submitted within ten days from the date of publication of the advertisement notification. Cut off date for determining merit/qualification/eligibility was also fixed to be the same period. Petitioner no. 2, admittedly, has attained academic qualification of graduation in February, 2010. The official respondents, in view of the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement notification, were, thus, disabled to entertain and consider the graduation certificate of petitioner no. 2. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to buttress his submissions, referred to a case titled Ashok Kumar Sharma and another v. Chander Shekher and another reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 to suggest that as the selection process is still on, academic qualification of petitioner no. 2 was to be entertained and considered by the official respondents. This, in fact, was not the majority view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been subsequently clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a review petition titled Ashok Kumar Sharma & others v. Chander Shekhar and another reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 at paragraph 6 which reads as under: "The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3.3.1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1.9.1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the appli­cation, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with refer­ence to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification is­sued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications out to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners also fails. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners also fails. Because of the pendency of this case the selection process could not be brought to its logical conclusion by selecting and engaging meritorious candidates. The official respondents are duty bound to con­clude the selection process with a reasonable dispatch. 15. For the above stated reasons, SWP no. 831/2010, being without any merit, is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not prevent the petitioners to file objections to the tentative selection list for which ten days' time is given to the petitioners. SWP No. 181/2010 16. In view of the disposal of writ petition, SWP no. 831/2010, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents to conclude the selection process initiated by them in terms of advertisement notification dated December 2, 2009 within two months from the date copy of this order is served on them. Civil Suit No. 81/N 17. In view of the decision of writ petition (SWP) nos. 831/2010 and 181/2010, the civil suit does not survive and the plaint is, accordingly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and suit stands dismissed. 18. Registry to send back the record of the trial court, however, informing that the suit has been dismissed.