Per Yaqoob, J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.2007 rendered in SWP No. 101/2001 by the learned Single Judge, whereunder engagement of appellant (respondent No. 5 in writ petition) as Teaching Guide, has been quashed. 2. The Village Level Committee had prepared the panel of eligible candidates of village Kutwalat wherein appellant figured at S. No. 6. Five vacancies were to be supplied. Out of the first five candidates figuring at S. Nos. 1 to 5, S. Nos. 1 and 2 have not joined, as a result thereof, the candidates figuring at S. Nos. 6 & 7 were engaged. 3. Respondent No. 5 (writ petitioner) Bishan Dass, who figured at S. No. 10 filed writ petition claiming that he being a Scheduled Caste, should have been engaged in place of Social Caste candidate who figured at S. No. 2. Furthermore, it was also contended that the appellant (respondent No. 5 in writ petition) is not resident of the village, so was ineligible. 4. Learned Single Judge has only dealt with one issue, i.e., applicability of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 notified vide SRO 126 of 1994. 5. The question arose as to whether for engaging Teaching Guide, SRO 126, i.e., Reservation Rules are applicable. 6. Learned Single Judge noticed that after five years the Teaching Guide is adjusted as general line teacher, therefore, while engaging Teaching Guide, SRO 126 of 1994 has to be taken into consideration because the Scheme governing the engagement of Teaching Guide specifically provides, that, "due consideration" shall be given by the Village Level Committees to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. Finally, engagement of appellant (respondent No. 5 in writ petition) has been quashed and in his place, writ petitioner has been directed to be considered. 7. Mr. Raina, learned senior Advocate contended that the appointment of appellant has been illegally quashed because if SRO 126 of 1994 applies even then the result would be inclusion of the writ petitioner to the exclusion of the last engaged candidate. The last engaged candidate was Mr. Dev Raj, figuring at S. No. 7, who was not arrayed as a party. 8. It is further contended that the issue concerning the residence of the appellant has not been dealt with, obviously, for the reasons that the appellant is actually resident of the same village. 9. Mr. The last engaged candidate was Mr. Dev Raj, figuring at S. No. 7, who was not arrayed as a party. 8. It is further contended that the issue concerning the residence of the appellant has not been dealt with, obviously, for the reasons that the appellant is actually resident of the same village. 9. Mr. Jalali, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, when confronted with the above said position, in an eloquent and candid manner submitted that the writ petitioner was required to seek relief as against Mr. Dev Raj, who figured at S. No. 7 which he has not. But now, he is worst sufferer. He has crossed the age limit. In case, Village Level Committee would have considered the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category then the writ petitioner would have been selected. The respondent- authorities too have not looked into the said aspect of the case, aggrieved thereof, writ petitioner filed the writ petition. Now, by the afflux of time, he has crossed the age, so is hanging in an uncertain situation. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds, in view of the aforesaid negligence, some relief is required to be granted which would advance the cause of justice. 10. Mr. Ravinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-authorities submitted that the process of engagement was in accordance with the Scheme. Furthermore, the respondent-writ petitioner has not sought appropriate relief in the writ petition as against Mr. Dev Raj. He has also supported the submission of the appellant to the effect that the quashment of the appellant's engagement order is un-warranted. 11. On thoughtful consideration of the facts, circumstances and submissions as made, the impugned order providing for quashment of the engagement order of the appellant is found to be totally un-warranted. If at all, on the basis of representation to the Scheduled Caste category, writ petitioner was to be engaged, then, it could be to the exclusion of Serial No. 7, i.e., last candidate, (Mr. Dev Raj), whose position has not been challenged. The appellant figured at S. No. 6 in the order of merit, so could not be excluded. Judgment impugned is, accordingly, set aside. 12. Dev Raj), whose position has not been challenged. The appellant figured at S. No. 6 in the order of merit, so could not be excluded. Judgment impugned is, accordingly, set aside. 12. While noticing position of the respondent-writ petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and in case Village Level Committee and thereafter the respondent-authorities would have considered the matter properly, they would have included the respondent amongst the five candidates engaged. Both Village Level Committee as well as respondent-authorities have exhibited indifference. Respondent (writ petitioner) too has slipped because the engagement of Dev Raj, was neither challenged nor he was arrayed as party. 13. In the stated peculiar circumstances, respondent- authorities shall have to consider the respondent-writ petitioner as against the available vacancy of Teaching Guide in relaxation of age. The position of the respondent-writ petitioner being peculiar, if engaged, ` shall not in any manner, be a precedent or shall not in any manner, clothe any other person with the right to claim similar treatment. We hope and trust that the respondent-authorities in above stated position will sympathetically consider the case of respondent-writ petitioner, as an exceptional case. 14. The appeal succeeds, shall stand disposed of on aforestated terms.