1. In terms of order dated 20th November 2013, writ petition (SWP No. 2230/2011) was directed to be clubbed and listed alongwith SWP No. 1114/2013. 2. The subject matter in both the petitions relates to filling up of one Rehbar-e-Taleem (Math stream) position as has become vacant due to termination of services of one of the selected candidates. 3. Considered. 4. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal. SWP No. 2230/2011 5. Zonal Education Officer, Budgam-respondent no. 4 in the petition, vide Advertisement Notice No. ZEO/DG/1069-70 dated 15.10.2010, invited applications from eligible candidates of Revenue Village Dreygam having minimum qualification of 10+2 or above with Math and Science background for engagement of two Rehbar-e-Taleems (ReTs) in Newly Upgraded School (Primary School to Middle School) at Shah Mohalla, Dreygam, Budgam. Petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates responded to advertisement notice. 6. A Panel/List, comprising of eight candidates including Shri Mudasir Ahmad Malik - petitioner herein, figuring at Serial No. 07, was prepared, followed by Tentative Select List of two candidates namely Musavir Maqbool and Muzaffar Ahmad Beigh for Science and Math Streams respectively and objections there against as well invited, and engagement orders in their favour were issued. However, Muzaffar Ahmad Beigh, engaged as ReT under Math Stream, after joining his services, remained unauthorisedly absent and his services were terminated vide Order No. ZEO/D-857-60 dated 03.08.2011. Respondent no. 4 submitted the case to respondent no. 3 for selection of next meritorious candidate having Math background for filling up the vacant ReT position. 7. Petitioner is aggrieved that though possessing additional qualification of B.Ed, he is not being considered against aforesaid vacant ReT position, and as such, has come up with writ petition in hand, seeking, inter alia, writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to issue engagement order in his favour. 8. Respondents in opposition to writ petition in their Reply state that additional Degree of B.Ed., of which petitioner seeks weightage, has been obtained from Bhartiya Shiksha Parisha Lucknow, U.P. which Degree, according to respondents, is not recognized. 8. Respondents in opposition to writ petition in their Reply state that additional Degree of B.Ed., of which petitioner seeks weightage, has been obtained from Bhartiya Shiksha Parisha Lucknow, U.P. which Degree, according to respondents, is not recognized. Respondents averred that number of candidates filed writ petitions seeking consideration on the basis of Degrees obtained by them from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, and that in compliance of orders passed by the Court, the validity of Degrees awarded by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, was considered by the Administrative Department and upon consideration of the matter, it was resolved as under: "Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow UP is not a recognized University by the UGC. Therefore, the degrees awarded/being awarded by this University are not recognized and valid for any academic/employment purpose." 9. It is pleaded that respondent no. 2 vide No. DSEKT/Legal/285/09/8642-52 dated 27.03.2010 informed respondent no. 3 as regards decision taken by Administrative Department regarding Degrees awarded by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow. Respondents contend that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, wherefrom petitioner obtained B.Ed. Degree, is not recognized by the UGC. It is pleaded that Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, U.P., has no right to confer degrees in terms of the UGC Act, 1956, thus, their degrees, including that of petitioner, cannot be held to be valid degrees. 10. I have heard rival contentions and gave thoughtful consideration thereto. 11. The precise case projected by petitioner in the instant petition is that respondents have not given due weightage to his additional qualification i.e. B.Ed Degree obtained by him from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, U.P. 12. The B.Ed. Degree obtained by petitioner from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow, U.P., is not recognized by the UGC, therefore, weightage cannot be sought much-less given to his additional qualification. Petitioner's case was considered by respondents as per his merit alongwith other eligible candidates. He figures at the bottom of Panel/merit List (Serial No. 7), therefore, could not be selected in presence of better and meritorious candidates. 13. Viewed thus, petition in hand is without any merit, therefore, dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s). SWP No. 1114/2013 1. In this writ petition, Ishfaq Ahmad Beigh - petitioner's precise contention is that respondents cannot operate the Panel/Select list after a candidate joins the services and then resigned or gets terminated from service, the said post becomes vacant, therefore, respondents are bound to initiate fresh selection process to fill up the said vacancy. SWP No. 1114/2013 1. In this writ petition, Ishfaq Ahmad Beigh - petitioner's precise contention is that respondents cannot operate the Panel/Select list after a candidate joins the services and then resigned or gets terminated from service, the said post becomes vacant, therefore, respondents are bound to initiate fresh selection process to fill up the said vacancy. On the edifice of case set up, petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to treat the vacancy of ReT (Math stream) as a fresh vacancy on account of termination of services of one Muzaffar Ahmad Beigh and issue fresh advertisement notice inviting fresh applications from the eligible candidates. 2. During pendency of the writ petition one Mohammad Ashraf Baba moved application bearing CMP No. 2031/2013 seeking impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition being affected party as being next in the merit (Math stream) in the Panel and entitled for consideration for the post of ReT, fallen vacant due to termination of Muzaffar Ahmad Beigh. The Court vide order dated 16.07.2013 allowed application of Mohammad Ashraf Baba and impleaded him as party respondent no. 5 in the petition. 3. State counsel raises objection regarding maintainability of writ petition in hand as according to him respondents have not violated any fundamental, constitutional, or statutory rights of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He submits that writ petition even otherwise is not maintainable because petitioner has never applied for ReT position, advertised vide Advertisement Notice dated 15.10.2010. It is also contended that on account of unauthorized absence of selected candidate namely Muzaffar Ahmad Beigh, his services were terminated under rules immediately within two months from the date of issuance of engagement order i.e. 03.08.2011, which rendered the panel/waiting list, prepared by the respondents, operative and valid for engagement of next meritorious candidate in terms of Government order No.503-Edu of 2010 dated 10.06.2010. Further, it is submitted that in view of validity period of the panel and representation of the next meritorious candidate, namely Mohammad Ashraf Baba- respondent no. 5, who was found most meritorious under Math stream, the matter was referred to Chief Education Officer, Budgam, for issuance of further necessary instructions and utilization of waiting list vide communication dated 23.08.2011, but same request was not considered due to the pendency of writ petition (SWP No. 2230/2011). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 5. Petitioner has not applied for the ReT position advertised vide Advertisement Notice dated 15.10.2010, however, is eligible for the said position, being resident of village Dreygam and having all other eligible requirements. 6. Ground of challenge in the instant writ petition is that the respondents cannot operate the earlier panel/waiting list because the post has fallen vacant due to termination of a selected candidate, meaning thereby, a candidate who has been selected and joined his services got terminated due to unauthorized absence, subsequently the said post fall vacant and is meant for fresh advertisement for which fresh applications are to be invited so as to enable eligible candidates to compete in the process. 7. Relevant portion of the Government order no. 503-Edu of 2010 dated 10.06.2010 [Refer 2012 (16) JKS JK-702] is reproduced as under:- "i. The validity of panel to be drawn for the selection of ReT in any newly opened primary school/up-graded primary school shall, henceforth, be six months from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of the selected candidates." 8. The plain reading of the aforesaid policy reveals that the panel/waiting list shall be valid for six months only from the date of issuance of engagement order in favour of the selected candidate, however, the case projected by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, once a candidate has been selected and appointed on the basis of merit, joined/performed duties for some time, subsequently due to termination of the said selected candidate, the post fallen vacant, is required to be re-advertised as per the scheme/Government order dated 10.06.2010. 9. Respondents have resisted the petition and vehemently argued that the respondents have recommended and referred the case of respondent no. 5-Mohammad Ashraf Baba to concerned authority vide letter dated 23.08.2011 i.e. within the validity period of six months, however, the same could not be considered due to pendency of SWP No. 2230/2011, therefore, respondents contend that initiation of operation of panel/waiting list is strictly as per the policy of the Government. In support, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed in Pawan Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of J&K & Anr., [ 2005 (3) JKJ 323 (HC)]. In support, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed in Pawan Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of J&K & Anr., [ 2005 (3) JKJ 323 (HC)]. In the said case, petitioner therein, shown in waiting list in open category for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry in Health and Medical Education Department, made a representation for his appointment against the post reserved for ST category being number one in the waiting list and as no suitable candidate being eligible for appointment under the reserved category. The case of the petitioner therein was not considered by the Government on the ground that the life of the panel submitted by the Public Service Commission had expired but made a request to the Commission for extension of validity of the period of panel so as to enable the Government to utilize the ST category post for appointment of the petitioner. The Commission informed the Department regarding the resolution not to approve the relaxation in the validity of select/waiting list, therefore, matter be treated to have been closed. The petitioner therein being aggrieved of the refusal of the Commission to extend the time of panel approached the court. 10. The reliance placed hereinabove by learned counsel for the respondents is of no avail having different facts than the present case. 11. A candidate, if fulfills requisite qualifications for a particular post, only has a right of consideration, but he has no fundamental right to seek appointment on such post. Even a candidate/person who is selected, does not, on account of mere empanelment, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Waiting list prepared by selection committee does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for contingency; if any of the selected candidates does not join then a person from the waiting list may be pushed up and appointed on a vacancy so caused. But once a selected candidate joins and no vacancy arises due to resignation or termination or for any other reason within a period of list, is to operate under the rules. 12. But once a selected candidate joins and no vacancy arises due to resignation or termination or for any other reason within a period of list, is to operate under the rules. 12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SWP No. 1002/2010 titled Waheeda Anwar v. State of J&K & ors., has opined that a post, fallen vacant due to resignation of the selected candidate, cannot be treated as a vacancy for the purpose of waiting list prepared in the earlier selection process but is to be treated as a fresh vacancy for which fresh process of selection is required. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in case Renu Bala v. State of J&K & ors. [ 2011(2) JKJ 42 (HC)], has observed that after joining on the post, some appointee resigns, even if such resignation takes place during validity of selection panel, it becomes a post available for fresh selection and appointing authority cannot fall back upon the selection list which is non-existent in the eye of law having been exhausted by appointment of all the selected candidates. It is further observed that once a candidate from the select panel appointed on the post, the panel ceases to exist and outlives its utility. The Division Bench, while holding so, relied upon the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma [ 2002(1) SCC 113 ]. 14. The Apex Court State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma (supra), has observed as under:- "...We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. In our view, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be sustained. As rightly contended for the appellant State, the notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. As rightly contended for the appellant State, the notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The circular order dated 22-3-1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the circular orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies." 15. Since the issue involved in this petition has already been dealt with and set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred judgment, writ petition of Ishafaq Ahmad Beigh, in view of aforesaid backdrop, succeeds. Respondents are directed to issue fresh advertisement notice for the ReT position (Math stream) for the Revenue Village Dreygam, Budgam, and complete the process within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is made available to them. 16. Disposed of, accordingly, alongwith connected CMPs.