1. Respondent vide its Notification No. 14-PSC of 2010 Dated 24th of September, 2010 invited the applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 15 posts of Assistant Law Remembrancer/Public Law Officer as per the breakup given in the Notification. One of the essential qualifications for the post as prescribed under Rules was Bachelors Degree in Law from recognized university with two years actual practice at Bar. 2. Petitioner responded to the said notification by filing her application which was rejected on the ground that she does not have the actual practice of two years at Bar and has failed to produce the requisite certificate to this effect. 3. It is this rejection of her candidature that has prompted the petitioner to assail it and seek the quashment of Notification dated 26.03.2011, published in daily Newspaper Greater Kashmir on 31.03.2011, so far it pertained to the rejection of her candidature, by a writ of certiorari. Besides the petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus against the respondent to the effect that she be allowed to participate in the selection process and her interview be conducted. 4. This court considered the matter on 7th of April, 2011 and asked the respondent to interview the petitioner also. 5. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondent on the ground that she was not having two years actual practice at Bar as was required, therefore, was ineligible to participate in the selection process. It is apt to reproduce Para 7 and 8 of the said reply herein: "7. On scrutiny of documents for determination of eligibility of 3 candidates, the application form of the petitioner was found deficient and accordingly vide Commission's letter No. PSC/DR/ALR/PLO/2010 dated 11.03.2011, the petitioner was advised to make up the following deficiencies within 5 days:- a. Experience Certificate of 2 years from Principal District & Sessions Judge concerned. b. All Marks Cards of LLB. c. Certificate of enrollment as an Advocate The Petitioner submitted some documents and on scrutiny of her documents, it was revealed that she qualified LLB degree on 02.04.2005 and was enrolled as an Advocate provisionally on 13.11.2006. Petitioner on the other hand had been admitted in LLM 1st year on 13.06.2005. Result of her final year LLM was declared on 11.07.2008. Besides, she was appointed as Lecturer in Kashmir Law College from 08.10.2009 till 17.03.2011. 8. Petitioner on the other hand had been admitted in LLM 1st year on 13.06.2005. Result of her final year LLM was declared on 11.07.2008. Besides, she was appointed as Lecturer in Kashmir Law College from 08.10.2009 till 17.03.2011. 8. Petitioner, ex facie, seemed to lack requisite actual bar practice, therefore, vide letter dated 19.03.2011 was asked to explain as to how she could claim actual bar practice when she was under going LLM course in University of Kashmir or/was doing job in Law College Nowshehra. Petitioner in response to said letter filed an application claiming therein that she had actual practice of two years at bar w.e.f. 1st September, 2007 to October, 2009, however, could not produce any certificate of such actual bar practice from the competent authority." 6. The stand of the respondents, to the effect of petitioner, having failed to submit the certificate of two years actual practice at Bar, is vindicated, for, admittedly petitioner has not submitted any such certificate before it or before this Court. This reason does not seem to be too little to hold petitioner ineligible. Even otherwise petitioner qualified her LLB 3 years course in April, 2005 and got admission in LLM Final Examination in June, 2005 and she was granted licence to practice law on 13th of November, 2006; and she was admittedly at that time pursuing LLM course and her result of LLM course was declared on 11th of July, 2008. Thereafter the petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer in Kashmir Law College Nowshehra on 8th of October, 2009. Perhaps because of being admitted and pursuing the LLM course the petitioner stayed away from the practice and that is why she could not obtain and produce the certificate from the concerned court-competent authority. 7. In terms of mandate of Section 24 of The Advocates Act 1961, read with the rule 5 contained in Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Rules, petitioner was supposed to intimate the competent authority about pursuing LLM course and licence to practice law was to be suspended till she would have resumed practice, which has not been done. Virtually the petitioner has concealed the material facts and her conduct goes in breach of said Rules. 8. Virtually the petitioner has concealed the material facts and her conduct goes in breach of said Rules. 8. Petitioner has admitted in Para 2 of the writ petition that she has got admission in LLM in the month of June, 2005 and appeared in the last semester of LLM examination in the month of August, 2007; and the licence to practice law was granted to her on 13th of November, 2006. On the said date she was already enrolled as LLM Student and was pursuing the course. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Licencing Authority, she would not have been granted licence. 9. Even otherwise, as discussed above, it was mandatory on the part of the petitioner, in terms of the above provisions of law, to intimate the competent authority about the factual position which she has opted not to do. 10. The writ petition, is held to be not maintainable and dismissed as such along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.