1. Zonal Education Officer, Yaripora Zone, Kulgam, respondent no. 4 herein, invited applications from the eligible candidates having qualification of 10+2 with math and science background for filling up the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher which had fallen vacant in Government Middle School, Hanjan Zone, Yaripora, District Kulgam. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement notice that only those candidates who were having math and science stream were eligible to apply. Writ petitioner along with respondent no. 5 and other candidates applied in response to said notification, list was prepared and respondent no. 5 was shown to have been selected. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has questioned the same on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case of petitioner is that he is having B.Sc. and MBA qualification, thus is more meritorious and having an edge over respondent no. 5, whereas respondent no. 5 is having B. Sc degree and has also obtained B. Ed. degree from the University of Kashmir. 3. Thus, the question arises for consideration is whether the degree of MBA has to be given preference over B. Ed. degree. 4. In terms of the advertisement notice, the basic qualification required for the post in question was 10+2 with science or math background. Advertisement no where prescribed that if a candidate is having MBA has a superior right. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Afroza Jan v. Feroz Ahmad Parray, LPA No. 117/2011, decided on 04.08.2011, while considering this issue has held that a candidate having B. Ed. or M.Ed, qualification has a preferential right in terms of Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated 01.10.2003 issued by the Government. It is profitable to reproduce paragraphs 8 & 9 herein: "8. Having considered the respective submissions and having perused the materials placed before us, at the very outset, we state for engagement as ReT, indisputably, the basic qualification is 10+2. However the State Government came forward with Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October 1,2003 wherein, in paragraph 1, it was stated that apart from 10+2 the reckonable qualification is graduate degree like B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. etc. As far as M.A. Edu., M.Ed, was concerned, the said order stated that both are to be treated on par and the candidates possessing M.A. Edu. or M.Ed, are eligible for appointment/promotion as +:2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B.Ed./M. Ed. etc. As far as M.A. Edu., M.Ed, was concerned, the said order stated that both are to be treated on par and the candidates possessing M.A. Edu. or M.Ed, are eligible for appointment/promotion as +:2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B.Ed./M. Ed. are stated to be carrying a professional edge vis-a-vis an academic postgraduate degree and that extra weightage is, therefore, to be allowed to the persons with B.Ed./M.Ed. which is relevant to the teaching and learning process. Paragraph 6 of the Government order further expanded the scope of allowing any other graduates of other disciplines also to be treated at par with graduate degree, mentioned in para 1. 9. Apart from the above prescriptions found in Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October 1, 2003, we do not find any other extra prescription providing for any additional qualification or any preferential treatment to be meted out for holding any other higher qualification. Though 10+2 is indisputably the basic qualification required for a person applying for engagement as ReT, the added prescription set out in Government Order No. 1503 dated October 1,2003 cannot be held to be irrational or not to be followed, inasmuch as it is also the settled position that once a person is engaged as ReT, as a matter of course, on successful completion of five years in such engagement, the person is inducted into the general teaching line." 6. The Division Bench has held that the required qualification is 10+2 in the relevant subject and the said order nowhere makes a reference vis-a-vis post graduation qualification. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 13 herein. "13. The reliance placed on the Government Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003 dated October 1, 2003, does not in any way support the claim of the appellant in this respect. We do not find any reference to possession of Postgraduate qualification in the said Government order providing for any special treatment or preferential treatment to be extended to a candidate apart from possession of required qualification of 10+2 in the relevant subject and the degree qualification. The reliance placed upon paragraph 13 of the Minutes of Meeting of the CEOs cannot also be accepted, inasmuch as, the same is neither a statutory requirement nor part of any prescribed provisions relating to the engagement of ReT as authenticated by the State Government. The reliance placed upon paragraph 13 of the Minutes of Meeting of the CEOs cannot also be accepted, inasmuch as, the same is neither a statutory requirement nor part of any prescribed provisions relating to the engagement of ReT as authenticated by the State Government. Even otherwise, the said paragraph only clarifies that as between a person having M.Ed, and other postgraduate qualification of M.A. or M.Sc., a person with the M.Ed, should be preferred. Therefore, the said paragraph 13 of the Minutes of Meeting of the CEOs does not also support the claim of the appellant." 7. As per the averments contained in the writ petition, the petitioner is having the qualification of MBA and not B.Ed. Thus, respondent no. 5 with B.Ed, qualification, undoubtedly, has a preferential right, as far as, consideration for the post in question, is concerned. 8. More so, respondent no. 5, in her reply to the writ petition has specifically contended that, the perusal of MBA qualification certificates of petitioner, consisting of four semesters, would reveal that the same had been issued within a span of eleven months, viz. 1st semester certificate in November 2008,2nd and 3rd semester certificates on a single date i.e., 25.06.2009 and after a period of only two months and 28 days the 4th semester certificate was issued in favour of petitioner. 9. Viewed thus, the selection of private respondent no. 5 is held to be legal, needs no interference. 10. It is also apt to consider herein that respondent no. 5 has specifically averred in the objections that earlier also her selection was questioned by the writ petitioner by the medium of SWP No. 204/2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2010. Thereafter, he again filed SWP No. 375/2010 on the sole ground that since he is having the superior qualification of MBA as compared to respondent no. 5, therefore, he deserves to be appointed against the post in question. 11. Respondent no. 5 herein resisted the said writ petition and no interim relief was granted. Thereafter the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.03.2010 (annexure R2). It is apt to reproduce the said order herein. "Reply to the application has not been filed despite direction. For the reasons detailed therein coupled with the submissions made at the bar, it is allowed. Thereafter the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.03.2010 (annexure R2). It is apt to reproduce the said order herein. "Reply to the application has not been filed despite direction. For the reasons detailed therein coupled with the submissions made at the bar, it is allowed. SWP No. 375/2010 is dismissed as withdrawn along with connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Disposed of” 12. The relief sought in the present writ petition cannot be granted on the same facts and grounds which were pleaded in the second writ petition. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition in hand is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.