1. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has called in question the re-advertisement notice dated 21.05.2012 and also the orders passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag, in case titled Aijaz Ahmad and anr. v. State and others, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 3. Respondents have filed the reply and have resisted the writ petition. 4. This writ petition owes its origin to an Advertisement notice DIPK No. 13974 dated 15.12.2011, issued by respondent No. 4, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) in Primary School, Kharpora. The notice specifically prescribed the eligibility criteria and the cutoff date for receipt of applications. The official respondents cancelled the advertisement notice in question, which constrained the private respondents to file a Civil Suit, questioning the cancellation order. The said Civil Suit is pending on the dockets of the learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag, wherein ad interim direction was granted and the cancellation notification was kept in abeyance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sub Judge modified the interim direction and directed the respondents to proceed ahead with the selection and complete the process of selection of eligible candidates. Thereafter, the respondents issued a re-advertisement notice inviting applications from all the eligible candidates and it was specifically stated that the cutoff date shall remain same as published in the previous advertisement notice. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner have questioned the same on two counts: firstly, that the respondents have not received the application of the petitioner because the time frame stipulated in terms of the previous advertisement had elapsed at the time of issuing fresh advertisement notice and that despite the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the official respondents and submitted the application which was not accepted; secondly, the applications were invited on the basis of habitation and not on the basis of revenue village. 6. 6. The respondents have filed the reply and have stated that the application of the petitioner stands received and is to be considered along with all other eligible candidates, but under the garb of the present writ petition, the petitioner aims at getting the entire selection process stalled/quashed so that fresh advertisement notice is issued and the Bachelors Degree, which the petitioner has obtained after the cutoff date, is considered. In other words, the respondents contend that the petitioner actually wants a breathing time to enable her to acquire the higher qualification so as to be able to participate in the selection process with an edge over the other competing candidates. This, I am afraid, cannot be allowed. The right of a person to compete for a post crystallizes only if he/she is eligible in terms of the prescriptions made in the advertisement notice. A candidate does not have a right to ask the competent authority not to issue the advertisement notice and to wait till he/she would acquire the qualifications required for the post or which may earn him/her an edge over others in the selection process. 7. More so, what is gathered from the pleadings of the parties is that, admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the previous advertisement notice. In terms of the said advertisement notice, the candidates hailing from revenue village had to apply and not on the basis of habitation. So the contention of restricting the selection on the basis of habitation is without any force. The respondents have specifically averred that they have received the application of the petitioner, which would be considered keeping in view her eligibility as per the cutoff date, as already notified. Otherwise also, the petitioner has failed to make any ground for issuing writ of certiorari. 8. It is seen from the record that the petitioner has also questioned the orders passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag, though not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments advanced at the Bar. It is the cardinal principle of law that orders passed by a civil court of competent jurisdiction in a suit cannot be called in question by way of a writ petition. This is so because the aggrieved party has an efficacious remedy available under the Code. It is the cardinal principle of law that orders passed by a civil court of competent jurisdiction in a suit cannot be called in question by way of a writ petition. This is so because the aggrieved party has an efficacious remedy available under the Code. If the petitioner was aggrieved of any orders passed by the learned Sub-Judge in the civil suit, he had the remedy available to him in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The challenge thrown thereto in this writ petition, therefore, is otherwise unsustainable. 9. Viewed thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMPs. Interim direction shall stand vacated. 10. However, no order as to costs. Registry shall remit the record of the trial court forthwith along with a copy of this order. SWP No. 940/2012 CMP No. 1544/2012 11. In view of the judgement passed hereinabove in writ petition, SWP No. 1084/2012, the writ petition at hand along with CMPs shall also stand dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.