Per Mansoor, J.;— 1. Judgment dated 06.04.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 306/2000 titled Hari Om Singh and others v. State and others (for short, impugned judgment) is subject matter of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. BRIEF FACTS 2. Writ petitioners-appellants had invoked jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ petition in the year 2000 being OWP No. 1039/2000 questioning the selection and appointment of respondents 3 to 7 against the post of Patwaris, came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 13.02.2004 along with OWP No. 166/2001 in light of the observations and directions having been issued by this Court vide its judgment dated 18.02.2002 passed in OWP No. 970/2000. It is apt to reproduce operative part of the judgment dated 18.02.2002 passed in OWP No. 970/2000 herein:- ".......While considering merit position of all the candidates in this category, if he is found higher than any of the candidates selected in this category then he be given selection. His merit position be indicated to him. Experience of the petitioner be also given due regard. Let this be done within a period of four months from the date copy of the order passed today becomes available to the respondents and their counsel. In case any of the candidates who stand selected does not know Urdu that aspect of the matter would be taken note of. Respondents would see to it that requisite knowledge of Urdu would be acquired by the selected candidate within a period of six months." 3. It is also profitable to reproduce order dated 13.02.2004 passed in OWP No. 166 of 2001 titled Darshan Kumar v. State and others and OWP No. 1039 of 2000 titled Tulsi Dass and others v. State and others herein. "Mr. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Qazi, Additional Advocate General for the official respondents have jointly prayed for disposal of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment passed in case (Liaqat Ali v. State and others) OWP No. 970/2000 decided on 18.02.2002, copy of the said judgment has been brought to my notice. "Mr. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Qazi, Additional Advocate General for the official respondents have jointly prayed for disposal of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment passed in case (Liaqat Ali v. State and others) OWP No. 970/2000 decided on 18.02.2002, copy of the said judgment has been brought to my notice. Since admittedly, the controversy raised in the present writ petition is identical to the controversy raised in the case titled Liaqat Ali v. State and others, therefore, the judgment rendered in the above said case shall apply to the facts of these cases also and, therefore, petitions are also disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in OWP No. 970/2000. It is further observed that in the light of the directions contained in OWP No. 970 of 2000 the case of the petitioners be also considered. Disposed of as such." 4. The perusal of the reproduced text makes it explicit that the case of Liquat Ali (petitioner in writ petition No. 970/2000), was considered, and he was selected for undergoing Patwar training. 5. In terms of order dated 13.02.2004 respondents had also considered the case of the writ petitioners-appellants and by virtue of Order No. FC (ADM) No. 606 of 2005 dated 15.02.2004, they rejected their claim on the ground that 20 candidates belonging to RBA category were to be selected in terms of the Reservation Rules. Petitioners Hari Om Singh and Tulsi Dass, who figured at S.No.22 and 42 respectively in the order of merit for RBA candidates were not found eligible for selection for Patwar training. As regards, Raghbir Singh, it is stated that he has not produced any document at the time of selection to support his claim under RBA category. Moreso, he was lower in merit than Hari Om Singh, therefore, could not be considered for selection to undergo Patwar training. 6. This Court, while having regard to the consideration order, has also dismissed the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioners-appellants, bearing COA (W) No. 73/2004, vide order dated 20.10.2005. 7. Moreso, he was lower in merit than Hari Om Singh, therefore, could not be considered for selection to undergo Patwar training. 6. This Court, while having regard to the consideration order, has also dismissed the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioners-appellants, bearing COA (W) No. 73/2004, vide order dated 20.10.2005. 7. Aggrieved of rejection order dated 15.02.2005, writ petitioners-appellants filed writ petition (OWP No. 306/2006) titled Hari Om Singh v. State and others sought quashment of rejection order dated 15.02.2005 and also sought writ of mandamus to the effect that selection of private respondents 3 to 7 as Patwaris made vide order dated 21.11.2000, be quashed and the petitioners be selected as Patwaris on the basis of their qualification and training rendered as Chainman over and above respondents 3 to 7. 8. Respondents filed their reply and contested the writ petition on various grounds. It was contended that writ petitioners secured lesser marks in the interview as compared to private respondents. It is also stated that Government had earmarked 100 posts of Patwari vide Govt. Order No. Rev (NG) 142 of 1999 dated 22.07.1999 and vide Govt. Order No. Rev (NG) 164 of 2000 dated 26.09.2000. Out of 1380 candidates engaged as Chainman in Jammu and Kashmir, 520 from Kashmir Division and 145 from Jammu Division were invited for interview before the Selection committee including the petitioners who could not make the grade. 9. Respondents have considered the case of the writ petitioners-appellants and have also given details in the impugned consideration order dated 15.02.2005 wherein, the merit position of the writ petitioners-appellants has also been disclosed. It is also contended that while adjusting Darshan Kumar in terms of the judgment passed by this Court, one candidate, namely, Mohammad Ashraf who figured at S. No. 93 in the merit list was lower in merit in open merit category and, thus, reverted back as Chainman in order to adjust Darshan Kumar. 10. We have gone through rejection order dated 15.02.2005 and are of the view that the same is legal and speaking one, and needs no interference. 11. Writ petitioners-appellants have neither arrayed all the candidates, who were selected and appointed in the open merit category, as party respondents nor questioned their selection and appointment. 12. 10. We have gone through rejection order dated 15.02.2005 and are of the view that the same is legal and speaking one, and needs no interference. 11. Writ petitioners-appellants have neither arrayed all the candidates, who were selected and appointed in the open merit category, as party respondents nor questioned their selection and appointment. 12. Writ petitioners-appellants have neither in the writ petition nor in the memo of appeal pleaded any malafide against the members of Selection Committee nor have they arrayed them as party respondents. 13. Writ Court after examining the pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that writ petitioners-appellants do not have any case at all in view of the comparative merit position of the petitioners and private respondents and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. It is profitable to reproduce operative part of the judgment dated 06.04.2011 herein. "...... Thus, the merit position would show that the respondents have obtained higher marks than that of the petitioner. No explanation in this behalf has been given by the petitioner. Keeping in view the merit position of the petitioner and the fact that no malafides are alleged against the members of selection committee. I find the respondents have rightly been selected and appointed. Petitioners do not have any case at all in view of the comparative merit position of the petitioners and private respondents. Petition dismissed." 14. During the pendency of instant appeal, writ petitioners-appellants have filed supplementary affidavit, which was taken on record. Respondents have filed response to the supplementary affidavit, specifically dealt with the issue and denied the averments made in it. 15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we upheld the same and dismiss the appeal along with connected CMA(s), if any.