JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.:- 1. Respondent-Services Selection Board (SSB) initiated selection process for recruitment of meritorious eligible candidates for being selected and appointed on the posts of teachers in various districts of Jammu Division including Jammu, Samba, Udhampur, Rajouri and Kathua. 2. Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012 was issued which was followed by Notification No. 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 and Notification No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013. Besides others, appellants/writ petitioners and applicants seeking impleadment responded to the aforesaid Notifications and sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the post teachers in the aforesaid districts of Jammu Division. 3. Respondent-SSB conducted test for short listing of candidates. The SSB thereafter, issued notification dated 13.01.2013, in respect of short listed candidates. The appellants/writ petitioners figured in the shortlist notification. 4. Respondent-SSB thereafter issued revised shortlist notification on 11.03.2014 in which the appellants/writ petitioners did not figure which prompted them to file the writ petition challenging the revised shortlist notification as also the consequential interview notifications. 5. Respondent-Board appeared before writ court and filed reply affidavit/objections. Learned writ court vide order dated 28.04.2015 dismissed the writ petition. 6. It is in this backdrop, this LPA is filed. In support of the appeal, Mr. Abhinav Sharma learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners raised issues about the initiation of selection process as also short listing of the candidates, inter alia on the ground that respondent-SSB proceeded to conduct the short listing test on the basis of amended Rule 14 of Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment) Rules, 2010 (for short Rules of 2010); the criteria for conducting the test of candidates was notified after the test was conducted on 17.09.2013. The criteria was published in newspapers on 19.09.2013; Regulation 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (Business and Procedure) Regulation 2013, which now stands deleted, has been followed for preparing the short list. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire selection process initiated by the respondent-SSB stand vitiated, besides for the aforesaid reasons also because the norms for the recruitment have been changed after the selection process was initiated. Learned counsel further submitted that in the writ petition, these issues were not raised but after the reply was filed by the respondent-SSB, supplementary affidavit was filed by the appellants/writ petitioners wherein all the above issues have been raised. Learned counsel further submitted that in the writ petition, these issues were not raised but after the reply was filed by the respondent-SSB, supplementary affidavit was filed by the appellants/writ petitioners wherein all the above issues have been raised. Learned counsel further submitted that all the issues raised by the appellants/writ petitioners have not been considered by the writ court and the impugned judgment came to be passed. 8. Learned counsel while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as (2007) 8 SCC 100 submitted that the issues raised have not been considered by the learned writ court. 9. Learned counsel also referred to the applicable Recruitment Rules and submitted that while framing the criteria for selection and appointment to the post of teachers, these Rules have not been followed, in as much as, the preference which is required to be given to the B.Ed qualification in terms of the aforesaid Rules in the selection process by the respondent-SSB has not been given. Learned counsel in support of his contentions referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 1993 (2) SCC 310 and prayed that impugned judgement of learned writ court be set aside. 10. Mr. Nadeem Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SSB submitted that an inadvertent mistake was committed by the respondent-SSB while framing the initial short list of the candidates who were required to be called for interview, inasmuch as, candidates who had applied for the posts vide Notification No. 03 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 were also considered for the posts notified vide Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2013 dated 16.02.2013. Learned counsel also submitted that the candidates who had applied for the post of teachers vide Notification No. 02 of 2013 dated 16.03.2013 and 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 were also considered for the posts notified vide Notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012, though they were not entitled for such consideration. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that this issue cropped up when the representations were filed by some of the aggrieved candidates. Learned counsel submitted that the decision was taken by the respondent-SSB to re-consider the issue and consequently revised shortlist was published, in which the appellants/writ petitioners were excluded because they could not reach the cut-off merit. Learned counsel submitted that in this factual backdrop, the appellants/writ petitioners have no right to agitate the matter before the Court. 12. Mr. Learned counsel submitted that the decision was taken by the respondent-SSB to re-consider the issue and consequently revised shortlist was published, in which the appellants/writ petitioners were excluded because they could not reach the cut-off merit. Learned counsel submitted that in this factual backdrop, the appellants/writ petitioners have no right to agitate the matter before the Court. 12. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel who appeared for some of the candidates on whose behalf an application has been filed for seeking their impleadment, submitted that the appellants/writ petitioners are precluded from raising the issues as the same were not raised in the writ petition but projected in the Supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel referred to the sequence of events with reference to dates to explain that the respondent-SSB has not committed any mistake in revising and publishing the list of candidates who are notified for being called for interview. 13. Learned counsel submitted that no change in the criteria took place as alleged by the appellants. Learned counsel also submitted that with regard to the conduct of examination for short listing of the candidates for being called for interview, the criteria was notified well in time. Learned counsel also referred to the finding recorded by the learned Writ Court about the merit secured by the appellants-writ petitioners and submitted that after perusal of the record produced by the respondent-SSB, the learned writ Court has recorded the finding that they did not make to the short list notification having failed to touch the cut-off merit. Learned counsel while referring to the impugned judgment also submitted that the learned Writ Court has recorded finding of fact that candidates have been called for interview in the ratio of 1:5 which is the mandate of Rule 14 of 2010. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. We heard Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, at great length. Learned counsel precisely raised all the grounds urged in the Supplementary affidavit and not those pleaded in the writ petition. 15. In the writ petition, appellants/writ petitioners prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Notification dated 11.03.2014 which is revised list of the short listed candidates. It was also prayed that Notification dated 19.03.2014 and Notification dated 26.02.2014 whereunder the short listed candidates have been called for interview be also quashed. 15. In the writ petition, appellants/writ petitioners prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Notification dated 11.03.2014 which is revised list of the short listed candidates. It was also prayed that Notification dated 19.03.2014 and Notification dated 26.02.2014 whereunder the short listed candidates have been called for interview be also quashed. Another direction is sought to command the respondent-SSB to conduct the interviews of the petitioners and allow them to participate in the selection process and with further prayer that in the event, the petitioners make the grade, their names for the appointment to the post of teachers be recommended. Further relief is sought that respondent No. 1 be directed to issue appointment orders of the petitioners in case the petitioners are selected by respondent-SSB and their names are recommended for appointment. 16. In the writ petition, it is stated that initially the writ petitioners were short listed for being called for interview but thereafter on some false and undisclosed grounds the impugned revised list has been issued. It is also stated that though the appellants/writ petitioners responded to all the three Advertisement Notifications and all of them were shown to have qualified the written test/short listing test but despite that they do not figure amongst those candidates who have been called for interview. It is also pleaded that on the cut off date, the appellants/writ petitioners were possessed of high qualification and did fairly well in the written test but the revised list has been issued without disclosing any reason. It is also pleaded that revised Notification dated 11.03.2014 does not specify the error, which crept in the preparation of the result of the written test at least concerning the petitioners who were eligible qua all the notifications in respect of age and qualification. It is also pleaded that respondent-SSB is required to call the candidates for interview five times the number of the vacancies but the same has not been done. These grounds are pleaded in the writ petition by the writ petitioners in support of their claim for issuance of direction for being called for interview besides seeking quashment of the notification of revised short list. 17. These grounds are pleaded in the writ petition by the writ petitioners in support of their claim for issuance of direction for being called for interview besides seeking quashment of the notification of revised short list. 17. Respondent-SSB at Para 6 of the objections/reply affidavit has pleaded that after the publication of Notification No. 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 (short list notification), it was noticed that an inadvertent error had crept-in the record during the process of formulation of short list Notification in respect of the Notification No. 03 of 2012, 02 of 2013 and 05 of 2013. At para 7 of the objection/reply affidavit, it is pleaded that inadvertent error had crept-in during the process of result formulation, inasmuch as, the candidates who had applied for posts notified vide Notification No. 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 were also considered for the slots/posts advertised vide Notification No. 02 of 2013 dated 16.02.2013 and similarly the candidates who had applied for the posts advertised vide Notification No. 02 of 2013 dated 16.02.2013 and 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 were also considered for the slots of notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012. This mistake was required to be rectified by the respondent-SSB and after rectification, the writ petitioners because of their lesser merit, did not figure in the revised Notification whereunder candidates have short listed for being called for interview. 18. It is settled position of law pleadings in respect of the writ petitions that all the facts as also the grounds are to be specifically pleaded and evidence thereof is to be annexed with the writ petition. Similarly, respondents are also required to plead all facts and grounds in the reply affidavit and annex evidence therewith. 19. The learned Writ Court decided the writ petition on the basis of the pleadings of the parties viz writ petition and reply affidavit. Thus has committed no illegality. 20. A writ petition is totally different from Civil suit. In the Civil suit, some facts are being pleaded and evidence is being led during the trial of the case. 19. The learned Writ Court decided the writ petition on the basis of the pleadings of the parties viz writ petition and reply affidavit. Thus has committed no illegality. 20. A writ petition is totally different from Civil suit. In the Civil suit, some facts are being pleaded and evidence is being led during the trial of the case. However, in the writ petition, when the facts are not pleaded and the grounds of challenge are not urged then the opposite party is deprived of valuable right of meeting the case and is not in a position to reply those pleadings and grounds which are being taken either by making oral submissions or by filing of supplementary affidavit. 21. This legal position is settled in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme at Para 13 of the case titled Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported as (1988) 4 SCC 534 . It has been specifically ruled at Para 13 that “if the facts are not pleaded in the writ petition or counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.” The issues projected at bar by Mr. Sharma have not raised in the writ petition in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and these issues cannot be entertained at this stage. 22. If a party is permitted to raise issue beyond the pleadings of the writ petition and reply affidavit, then definitely the other party would be literally condemned unheard and such action would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the issues raised by Mr. Abhinav Sharma in law cannot be entertained. However, though we allowed Mr. Abhinav Sharma to argue and raise the issues which were not pleaded in the writ petition, but the appellants/writ petitioners in law are precluded and estopped to raise such grounds to challenge the revised notification, inasmuch as, they voluntarily and consciously participated in the selection process on the terms and conditions laid down by the respondent-SSB from time to time. They had no grievance against the mode of selection adopted by the respondent-SSB till such time, they figured in the short list. All these issues have been raised only after the revised short list was issued. 24. They had no grievance against the mode of selection adopted by the respondent-SSB till such time, they figured in the short list. All these issues have been raised only after the revised short list was issued. 24. The appellants/writ petitioners cannot question the very process of short listing in which they voluntarily and consciously participated. They are presumed to have knowledge of all decisions of SSB which were uploaded on their website. 25. Respondent-SSB in the facts of this case is justified in issuing the revised list, inasmuch as, Respondent-SSB had committed mistake in considering the candidates from other notification which had resulted in issuance of short list notification in which the petitioners do not figure. Respondent-SSB has rectified the mistake and this action does not suffer from any illegality. They, in fact, in the facts of this case have meted out justice to the competing candidates. Respondent-Board when it considered candidates for framing of short list, who had not responded to a particular advertisement notification, or were not eligible, they had violated the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India of the candidates, who had responded to a particular notification and constituted a class apart. 26. Reference to un-amended Rule-14 would not change the fate of the appellants/writ petitioners as the finding recorded by the learned Writ Court after perusal of the record is that they did not reach to the cut off merit. Learned Writ Court has also recorded finding that the candidates have been called in the ratio of 1:5 for interview. All the candidates who participate in a selection process feel that he/she is the best meritorious candidate to be selected. All the candidates were subjected to a uniform test for being short listed. The meritorious candidates in the ratio of 1:5 posts, secured berth in short-list. No accusing finger is raised in the writ petition about conducting of the test for short listing of candidates. The writ petition in such circumstances was bound to fail. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 202/2014 decided on 22.07.2014 in case titled Syed Shabir Ahmad & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. has dismissed the LPA against the judgment of learned Writ Court dated 27.11.2014 passed in SWP No. 664/2014. The writ petition in such circumstances was bound to fail. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 202/2014 decided on 22.07.2014 in case titled Syed Shabir Ahmad & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. has dismissed the LPA against the judgment of learned Writ Court dated 27.11.2014 passed in SWP No. 664/2014. Learned Division Bench besides considering other issues also dismissed the appeal in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013(11) SCC 309 . 28. We subscribe to the view of the Division Bench taken in the aforesaid appeal. 29. For the above said reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 30. Interim direction shall stand vacated. Before parting with the judgment, we hope and trust that Respondent-SSB will conclude selection process at the earliest.