1. As against the vacancy of ReT to be supplied in MS Pranhall, petitioner was tentatively selected. As against said tentative selection, respondent No. 7 filed writ petition(SWP) No. 746/2009. During pendency of petition, fresh panel was pre pared by the official respondents wherein Manzoor Ahmad-respondent No. 7 was shown tentatively selected as is clear from the notification published in daily newspaper Srinagar Times in its issue dated 26.8.2009. Petitioner dissatisfied with the same, filed SWP No. 1207/2009. 2. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions were disposed of with the direction to Chief Education Officer, Kulgam-respondent No. 5 to consider the objections as were filed by petitioner Reyaz Ahmad Kumar and in case same would prevail, then list shall be reframed but in case objections fails, then he shall proceed ahead with the select list already prepared. 3. An enquiry seem to have been conducted in compliance to the said judgment dated 14.12.2010, passed while disposing of aforesaid two petitions, where-under Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam has clarified that respondent No. 7 is actually resident of Pranhall since September, 2004 when he got married as Khana-Damad at Pranhall. Same position has been communicated by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam to Chief Education Officer, under No. DCK/Ret/P71/671-72 dated 14.3.2011. Aggrieved by the said communication, petitioner Reyaz Ahmad Kumar filed the writ petition (SWP) No. 393/2012 seeking quashment of the said communication and to command the official respondents to complete the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 12.4.2009. Interim direction was issued to the effect that the selection process shall not be concluded till next date before the Bench. 4. During pendency of SWP No. 393/2012, one more petition i.e. SWP No. 1826/2012 has been filed by petitioner Reyaz Ahmad Kumar seeking direction in the name of respondents to complete the process of selection in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 12.04.2009. Now during the pendency of these two writ petitions, petitioner has filed CMP No. 2816/2012 seeking withdrawal of SWP No. 393/2012. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 has filed objections and in addition has filed CMP No. 2904/2012 seeking transposition of respondent No. 7 as peti tioner. 6.
Now during the pendency of these two writ petitions, petitioner has filed CMP No. 2816/2012 seeking withdrawal of SWP No. 393/2012. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 has filed objections and in addition has filed CMP No. 2904/2012 seeking transposition of respondent No. 7 as peti tioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application he has sought permission to re-agitate if cause survives, relief to the extent of permission to re-agitate is given up, so in short sought unconditional withdrawal of writ petition and added that for such type of withdrawal, right is absolute and Court has only to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In opposition, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 projected that the respondent No. 7 is entitled to be transposed as petitioner in terms of Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC. 8. When a withdrawal is sought unconditionally, same cannot be denied but when transposition is sought, then it has to be looked into as to whether seeker thereof has a substantial question to be decided against any of the defendants/respondents. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 would project that the official respondents during pendency of these writ petitions have issued fresh tentative select list where-under petitioner Reyaz Ahmad Kumar is shown tentatively selected, such action runs contrary to the interim direction dated 12.3.2012 wherein it was directed that the selection process shall not be concluded till next date. 9. This ground is not available as it does not give rise to a substantial question to be decided against the respondents because selection process has not been concluded as selection of the petitioner is totally tentative in nature. No benefit is derived by the petitioner under any of the interim direction passed in this writ petition from time to time. 10. Next it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 that how the official respondents have issued fresh tentative select list and why the petitioner has filed second writ petition i.e. SWP No. 1826/2012 when some of the reliefs were also claimed in the earlier writ petition i.e. SWP No. 393/2012. 11. So far as question of unconditional withdrawal is concerned, same, in the aforesaid background, cannot be denied nor transposition of the respondent No. 7 is permissible because no substantial question in this writ proceeding survive for consideration to be decided as against the respondents.
11. So far as question of unconditional withdrawal is concerned, same, in the aforesaid background, cannot be denied nor transposition of the respondent No. 7 is permissible because no substantial question in this writ proceeding survive for consideration to be decided as against the respondents. 12. Now the important question is as to why petitioner filed the second writ petition i.e. SWP No. 1826/2012 for the reliefs which were already prayed for in SWP No. 393/2012. The withdrawal application may be to protect position of the subsequently filed writ petition but with the withdrawal of SWP No. 393/2012, subsequently filed SWP No. 1826/2012 has to be dismissed because the process of selection is in progress. Now the petitioner tentatively has been selected, how he has been selected, whether his tentative selection is genuine or not, it shall be open for respondent No. 7 to work out the remedies as against the said tentative selection either by filing objections to the tentative selection of the petitioner or by having resort to other legal permissible measures. 13. Viewed thus, application for transposition filed by respondent No. 7 is dismissed, application for withdrawal is unconditionally allowed. Writ petition(SWP) No. 393/2012 shall stand dismissed along with connected CMPs, resultantly subsequently filed writ petition (SWP) No. 1826/2012 shall also stand dismissed along with connected CMPs leaving it open to the respondent No. 7 to work out remedies as shall be available to him as against the tentative selection of the petitioner.