Mansoor, J.— 1. The instant appeal seeks reversal of judgment dated 9th February, 2009, for short impugned judgment, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 756/2008. 2. A brief narration of the controversy is deemed appropriate, thus: 3. Appellant responded to the advertisement No. CEO/Pul/SSA/07/849 dated 25th September, 2007, seeking applications from aspiring candidates to undergo selection process, amongst others, for the post of 3rd Teacher, Rehbar-e-Taleem, for short ReT, Upper Primary School, for short UPS, Mandina, Pulwama. 4. The selection process culminated into the selection and appointment of one Reyaz Ahmad, respondent No. 6. 5. The said selection aggrieved the appellant who filed a writ petition, viz. SWP No. 756 of 2008, before the learned Writ Court praying for its quashment. 6. The appellant by way of filing the writ petition projected herself to be more meritorious as compared to the selected candidate, therefore, desired to set right the wrong. 7. Refuting the contentions of the appellant, the official respondents maintained that selection is fair and the appointed candidate is more meritorious. 8. Learned Writ Court, after examining the pleadings of the parties, Govt. orders on the subject, read with the opinions tendered by the Education Department as also by the University of Kashmir, held that writ respondent was having a preferential right because of having to his credit a qualification of M.A with B. Ed. and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 9. The said verdict of the learned Writ Court did not satisfy the appellant, therefore, she has preferred, against it, the instant appeal seeking its reversal. 10. Before dwelling on the merits of the appeal, it would be proper, to bring on record the subsequent developments, those have taken place during the pendency of the instant appeal. 11. Respondent No. 6, Reyaz Ahmad, came to be appointed as a general line teacher and left the job, thereby, post in controversy has fallen vacant. 12. Meanwhile, an application seeking impleadment in the matter, came to be filed on behalf of one Fayaz Ahmad Dar, on the ground, that he being more meritorious than both the appellant and respondent No. 6, had to be selected and appointed instead. 13. 12. Meanwhile, an application seeking impleadment in the matter, came to be filed on behalf of one Fayaz Ahmad Dar, on the ground, that he being more meritorious than both the appellant and respondent No. 6, had to be selected and appointed instead. 13. In terms of order dated 16th August, 2011, while deciding the appeal, it has been observed by the Court that since the applicant seeking impleadment has never participated in the selection process in dispute, therefore, he does not have any locus to get himself impleaded as party respondent in the appeal. The Court further held, that appellant is the only eligible candidate for being appointed, against the post in dispute after it became vacant. 14. Against the said order a review petition No. 15/2011 was filed by the said Fayaz Ahmad pleading therein that it is only on the basis of his response to the said Advertisement Notice that he has come before the court, therefore, it would be wrong to say that he never participated in the selection process, and deciding LPA at his back, too, is bad in law. 15. The contention made by said Fayaz Ahmad, got corroboration by the stand of official respondents who admitted that review petitioner has participated in the selection process. 16. Taking note of the stand of the official respondents, this Court, vide its order dated 26th November, 2012, allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 16th August, 2011, besides restoring the LPA to its original number. 17. Thereafter in terms of order dated 11th March, 2013, the application for impleadment viz. CMP No. 111/2009 was allowed and applicant, Fayaz Ahmad, was arrayed as respondent No. 7, in the array of respondents. 18. We have examined the pleadings, heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 19. The issue that needs determination, in the given set up, is that as to who, amongst the two viz. appellant and respondent No. 6, was eligible for appointment against the post in dispute? 20. To find an answer to the said question, one needs to look at and take note of each claim. The appellant was admittedly lower in merit as compared to respondent No. 6. appellant and respondent No. 6, was eligible for appointment against the post in dispute? 20. To find an answer to the said question, one needs to look at and take note of each claim. The appellant was admittedly lower in merit as compared to respondent No. 6. To elaborate the reasoning, it would be apt to reproduce last paragraph of impugned judgment herein, thus: "On consideration of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present petition for the reasons that the Govt. Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003, which has not been challenged by the petitioner gives an edge to the professional qualification of M. Ed over the academic qualification of M.A./B. A. The University of Kashmir has also given due reasons while giving weightage to the qualification of M. Ed. It states that the M. Ed is a professional degree much higher in weightage than non-professional academic degree. Since M.A. or for that matter any post graduate is only an academic degree, M. Ed being a professional degree deserve preference in recruitment of teachers as stated by the University of Kashmir vide communication dated 5.11.2003." 21. The perusal of the Govt. Order No. 1503-Edu of 2003, read with the opinion tendered by the University and the Education Department on the subject, crystallizes the fact that writ respondent was rightly held to be more meritorious, and we accordingly endorse the view. 22. This Court in case titled Afroza Jan v. Feroz Ahmad Parray & Ors bearing LPA No. 117/2011, has made a specific observation on the subject. The relevant portion, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereinbelow, thus: "Having considered the respective submissions and having perused the materials placed before us, at the very outset, we state that 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., are eligible for appointment/promotion as +2 Lecturers. The persons possessing B.Ed./M. Ed which is relevant to the teaching and learning process. 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., are eligible for appointment/promotion as +2 Lecturers. The persons possessing 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 on par with graduate degree mentioned in para 1." 23. Let us find out the worth of the claim made by respondent No. 7. i. The panel, for the post, was drawn on 18th July, 2007, and respondent No. 7, was not figuring in it. Thereafter, fresh tentative panel was drawn on 16th May, 2008, in which respondent No. 6, was shown selected. Objections, against the said panel, were sought from all the persons. Respondent No. 7, has chosen not to file objections either to the panel dated 18th July, 2007, or of 16th May, 2008, implying that the selection has been admitted by him quietly. ii. It is an admitted fact that when the selection against the post in dispute was made, the only person who threw challenge to it was the appellant by way of filing a writ petition way back in 2008 viz. 21st May, 2008. The writ petition, after remaining on board for almost a year, was disposed of vide judgment dated 9th February, 2009. Appellant challenged the judgment by filing the instant appeal on 19th February, 2009, and the proceedings in the LPA commenced and were going on when suddenly on 20th April, 2009, he showed his presence by filing CMP No. 111/2009, seeking impleadment as party respondent. During all this time, viz. 21st May, 2008, till 20th April, 2009, respondent No. 7, remained aloof. He made his presence felt, probably, only after coming to know about the selection of Reyaz Ahmad, respondent no. 6 as a general line teacher, thus, was a fencer. 24. Now one more question gets a chance to arise, as to whether, appellant can be considered for the post in question, in view of the fact that it has become vacant because of selection of respondent No. 6, as a general line teacher? 25. 6 as a general line teacher, thus, was a fencer. 24. Now one more question gets a chance to arise, as to whether, appellant can be considered for the post in question, in view of the fact that it has become vacant because of selection of respondent No. 6, as a general line teacher? 25. The Scheme that governs the field, known as Rehbar-e-Taleem, for short ReT, therefore, can be of assistance to facilitate the answer. It says: "i. The validity of panel to be drawn for the selection of ReT in any newly opened primary school/upgraded primary school shall henceforth be six months from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of the selected candidates. 26. In terms of the said scheme, if a post falls vacant within a period of six months from the date of engagement of a selectee, then a person next in merit can be considered for appointment, but in the instant case, the post has not fallen vacant within such rime, thus, the post is no more available to the candidates, who competed for it, in terms of the Advertisement supra and figured in the panel, but has rather become available for fresh selection. 27. It would be in place to mention here that respondents have filed status report, stating therein that there is no need to make fresh selection against the said post for the reason that there are five teachers already existing on the establishment without there being any student to teach. 28. In the given circumstances, the appeal is held to be without any merit, therefore, dismissed. 29. Send down the record.