JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. The instant appeal calls in question judgment dated 30th April, 2015, for short impugned judgment, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 2023/2011, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant along with connected CMPs and allowing the SWP No. 1684/2014 along with CMPs. To understand the grievance of the appellant in proper perspective, a brief narration of the events, may be made, thus: 2. An Advertisement Notice dated 15th October, 2008, seeking candidature of eligible candidates, having 10+2 academic qualification with Science or Mathematics background, for their engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem, for short ReT, against two posts available in upgraded Primary School Haranjguro, Beerwah, was issued by the Zonal Education Officer concerned. 3. The advertisement notice did not receive any response because no candidate in the revenue village with Science and Mathematics background was available. 4. Meanwhile, candidates with Arts background approached the Writ Court and prayed for issuance of direction that they be considered for selection/engagement as ReT, against the aforesaid posts. 5. On 31st December 2008, one more advertisement notice was issued for filling up of aforesaid two posts on revenue village basis/zone basis/panchayat halqa basis. The zone of consideration was extended to ensure that the selection process should not collapse because of non-availability of eligible candidate in a revenue village. 6. The Notice, thereafter, was published on 13th January, 2009, which too remained unresponsive and in the meanwhile, writ petitions filed by the candidates with Arts stream were dismissed on 17th May, 2010. The judgment was challenged but the LPA was also dismissed in the year 2011. 7. It is submitted that process of selection was made to remain static for long so as to see that petitioner in SWP No. 1684/2014 is appointed on the post after attaining eligibility as advertisement, firstly, was issued for the ReT post in Mathematics stream and the post in Science stream was not put to notice to favour petitioner in SWP No. 1684/2014, Ishrat Bano, respondent No. 5, herein. 8. It is averred that the father of said Ishrat Bano, respondent No. 5, was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Zonal Education Officer, Beerwah and was instrumental in delaying the process till his daughter attained eligibility. 9. 8. It is averred that the father of said Ishrat Bano, respondent No. 5, was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Zonal Education Officer, Beerwah and was instrumental in delaying the process till his daughter attained eligibility. 9. It is further stated that the learned Writ Court did not appreciate the controversy in its right perspective as it failed to take into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, thereby depriving the appellant of his legitimate right of selection. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and other material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for appellant has come in appeal only to convince the Court that in the instant matter there have been certain mala fide exercises having been made by the people in Education Department those have resulted in marring the chances of appellant to make it to selection against the post in question. 13. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that the relief prayed for in the writ petition No. 2023/2011 having reference to issuance of writ of mandamus to the effect that respondents be directed to advertise the posts of ReTs in Science Stream on terms and conditions befitting the appellant/petitioner is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction as no such relief can be granted. 14. The opposite counsels would submit that the selection made in the matter is justified and the delay occurred has occasioned only because of the huge litigation as so many writ petitions were filed before the Writ Court. 15. It appears that learned Writ Court, has thoroughly deliberated on every single issue having been raised in the matter and the findings recorded are legally sound, for, no fault can be found in the learned Writ Court finding when it says that at the time of initial advertisement neither appellant nor the respondent No. 5 were eligible on the basis of former being not the resident of revenue village and the later not possessing the requisite qualification. And it is rightly observed that by the time the litigation was over the advertisement had to be issued on the basis of revenue village first to see whether an eligible candidate within the revenue village is available before extending the zone of consideration and the respondent No. 5 being the lone eligible candidate responded and was rightly selected. The question of the selection of appellant would come only when zone of consideration is extended to education zone/panchayat halqa. 16. The submission made by learned State Counsel with reference to grant of relief as prayed for in the writ petition out of which this LPA has arisen, being beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction, has substance as no writ can be issued by the Court asking the selection authority to advertise the post or to extend the area of zone of consideration beyond the scope of any scheme provided in the Government orders or the Rules. 17. In view of above the impugned judgment is held to be well reasoned which needs no interference. Appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. Send down the record.