M.M. Kumar, C.J.;— 1. Caveat discharged. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent challenges the judgment and order dated 07.08.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that habitation Chawalgam is distinct and separate than the other habitation known as Lisser. The aforesaid question has been raised by the appellants by challenging the selection of private respondents for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem in the upgraded Primary School of Chawalgam. The argument raised has been that Lisser is included in Chawalgam and therefore it constitute one hamlet and candidates from Lisser would be eligible to be considered for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem whenever the post is advertised for Chawalgam. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, which was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. It has been opined by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that Chawalgam and Lisser are separate habitations. A perusal of the report (P-14) further shows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had visited the spot personally. On the ground that the schools have separate sign boards as per the habitations, the appointments of Rehbar-e-Taleem have also been made on habitation basis and the appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem in the upgraded Primary School of Chawalgam necessarily had to be made from the candidates belonging to Chawalgam habitation. The candidates of Lisser habitation are required to be considered for appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem in the upgraded Primary School, Lisser. In that regard a reference has been made to the Communication No. CEO/A/10/2055-57 dated 21.11.2011 issued by the Department of Education proposing to upgrade Primary School Lisser as a separate pati of revenue village Chawalgam and the appointment of Rehbar-e-Taleem has to be made from the candidates of Lisser habitation alone. 2. Mr. Bhat has vehemently argued that Government Order No. 288 of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 (P-14) has defined village to mean as a revenue village and where habitations of revenue village are scattered, a candidate belonging to a habitation in popular language known as a village, must satisfy the condition that it is one kilometer away from the other habitation and having a population of more than 300 persons. The aforesaid argument has failed to impress us because the Deputy Commissioner in his report has granted opportunity to both the parties, namely, appellant as well as private respondents. The aforesaid argument has failed to impress us because the Deputy Commissioner in his report has granted opportunity to both the parties, namely, appellant as well as private respondents. In the exercise of jurisdiction by the Writ Court, evidence cannot be re-appreciated to reach a conclusion different than the one recorded by the administrative authority unless such a view is laconic. It has been categorically held that village Lisser is a separate habitation with a separate school and Chawalgam is also separate. Even the appointment in the school of Lisser had been made by confining it to the candidates of that very village. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit the appeal because pure findings of facts are involved which cannot be re-opened. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails hence same is dismissed.