JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against Writ Court judgment dated 26th July 2013 in SWP No. 856/2012 titled Mohammad Younis Wani v. State of J & K and others, whereby petition has been allowed, and selection and engagement of respondent No. 7 - appellant herein, as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) in Upgraded Middle School, Sofipora, Education Zone Yaripora, quashed. The Appeal arises in the following background. Appellant and respondent No. 6/writ petitioner responded to advertisement notice dated 23rd October 2009, issued by Zonal Education Officer, Yaripora, inviting applications from eligible candidates for ReT position (Science Stream) in Upgraded Middle School, Sofipora. Both appellant as well as respondent No. 6/writ petitioner with 10+2 (Science) Certificate to their credit, were found eligible for advertised position. Respondent No. 6/writ petitioner had higher merit (364/600) as against appellant (317/600) at 10+2 level. Appellant in addition to 10+2 (Science certificate) obtained B.A., B.Ed. Degree and so was case with respondent No. 6/writ petitioner. However, appellant because of higher merit at B.A., B.Ed., level as compared to that of respondent No. 6/writ petitioner, was given extra weightage for higher qualification to his credit and provisionally selected against advertised position. Panel dated 12th December 2009 was questioned in SWP No. 09/2010 and SWP No. 857/2010. Respondents, notwithstanding pendency of writ petitions, proceeded to engage appellant vide order dated 22nd February 2010. Respondent No. 6/writ petitioner left with no option but to withdraw SWP No. 857/2010 and file a fresh writ petition, being SWP No. 856/2012. He now assailed appellant's engagement as ReT (Science Stream). Respondent No. 6/writ petitioner's case before Writ Court was that he with higher merit at 10+2 level as against appellant, had right, to be engaged against advertise position and that he was unjustifiably ignored by respondents. It was pleaded that as appellant did not have Science subjects at Graduation level, B.A., B.Ed, earned by her was not to give her edge over him, more so when he also had B.A., B.Ed. Degree to his credit. 2. Writ petition was opposed by respondents on the ground that appellant with higher merit in B.A., B.Ed., had preferential right to be considered against advertised position and was, therefore, rightly selected and engaged as ReT (Science) in Upgraded Primary School Sofipora. 3. Degree to his credit. 2. Writ petition was opposed by respondents on the ground that appellant with higher merit in B.A., B.Ed., had preferential right to be considered against advertised position and was, therefore, rightly selected and engaged as ReT (Science) in Upgraded Primary School Sofipora. 3. Writ Court, relying on law laid down in Javeed Ahmad Khanday v. State of J & K and others [2012 (3) JKJ[HC] 594 : 2012 SLJ 1059] held that merit at 10+2 level was to be given preference while making selection of ReT in Mathematics or Science Stream under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), irrespective of higher qualification unless such higher qualification was also in concerned subject. As in case before Writ Court, appellant did not have higher qualification in required subject i.e. Science, she in the opinion of Writ Court was not to be given any weightage for higher qualification (B.A., B.Ed.) to her credit. Writ Court proceeded to hold that appellant with lesser merit at 10+2 level with Science subject as against respondent No. 6/writ petitioner, did not have right to be selected against advertised position. In other words, respondent No. 6/writ petitioner was held to have right to be considered for advertised position. Accordingly, respondents were directed to accord such consideration to respondent No. 6 writ petitioner. Selection and engagement of appellant was, therefore, quashed. 4. Writ Court judgment is questioned primarily on the ground that selection of appellant was made in terms of communication No. DSEK/2000/Misc/3271-80 dated 20th February 2009, addressed by Director, School Education, Kashmir Division, whereby all Chief Education Officers were required to give preference to candidates with 10+2 Science/Mathematics and additional qualification like B.A., over candidates with 10+2 Science though with higher merit at 10+2 level. It is urged that communication seemingly escaped attention of learned Writ Court and Writ Court judgment, therefore, was liable to be set-aside. 5. We have gone through memo of appeal, Writ Court judgment and record available on file. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 6. The question whether higher degree in a subject different from one required at 10+2 level would earn a candidate extra weightage and a right, therefore, to be selected against ReT position under SSA in preference of candidate with less qualification, has fallen for consideration of this Court more than once. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length. 6. The question whether higher degree in a subject different from one required at 10+2 level would earn a candidate extra weightage and a right, therefore, to be selected against ReT position under SSA in preference of candidate with less qualification, has fallen for consideration of this Court more than once. It has been all along held that only higher qualification in the concerned subject would give a candidate an edge over his competitor for the ReT position. The principal has been reiterated in Javed Ahmad Khanday's case (supra), relied upon by learned Single Judge while rendering judgment impugned in appeal. 7. To illustrate whenever ReT position in Science Stream is sought to be filled up with 10+2 Science as eligibility qualification, a candidate with B.Sc. Degree or M.Sc. Degree is to have edger over a candidate with Science at 10+2 level even with higher merit but not higher qualification in Science. His competitor, without higher degree, is to be ignored notwithstanding his merit at 10+2 level. Same is true about Mathematics Stream. Therefore, a candidate for ReT position with Science Stream at 10+2 level is not to be given preference because he has a higher qualification in different discipline, say in Persian, Urdu, Hindi, History, so on and so forth. In such case his competitor with 10+2 with Science with higher merit in 10+2 (Science) level is to be given preference. 8. In the present case, appellant with lesser merit at 10+2 level as against respondent No. 6/writ petitioner and higher degree in a different discipline i.e. Arts, was not to be given any preference over respondent No. 6/writ petitioner. Resultantly, her selection and engagement was in gross violation of Article 14 and 6, Constitution of India. 9. The plea that communication dated 20th April 2009, addressed by Director, School Education to all Chief Education Officers, would justify appellants selection and engagement, is without any merit. In first place, communication would not replace, amend or modify guidelines issued by Government. Power to alter, amend or modify guidelines lies with Government. Secondly, Learned Single Judge judgment dated 10th April 2009 in SWP No. 171/2009 titled Rayees Ahmad Dar v. State and Others, did not direct respondent. No. 2 to issue any such communication. In first place, communication would not replace, amend or modify guidelines issued by Government. Power to alter, amend or modify guidelines lies with Government. Secondly, Learned Single Judge judgment dated 10th April 2009 in SWP No. 171/2009 titled Rayees Ahmad Dar v. State and Others, did not direct respondent. No. 2 to issue any such communication. The view taken by learned Single Judge, while dismissing writ petition at admission stage, was confined to facts set out in said petition. In any case, view taken is not in conformity with Division Bench judgment. 10. Appellants, therefore, cannot take refuge under judgment dated 10th April 2009 or communication in question. Assuming for a while that communication dated 20th April 2009 would cover selection in question, still selection and appointment would not be justified as communication deals with case where one of candidates is 10+2 Science/Mathematics with additional qualification and other candidate though with 10+2 with Science/Mathematics is without such higher qualification. Facts in present case are different. Both appellant and respondent No. 6/writ petitioner have B.A. B.Ed. Degree to their credit. Respondent No. 6/writ petitioner, however, has higher merit at 10+2 (Science) level as against appellant. Therefore, communication cannot come to rescue of appellant. 11. Learned counsel for appellant, as a last ditch effort, relies upon judgment dated 10th April 2009 in SWP No. 171/2009 titled Rayees Ahmad Dar v. State and others, to urge that appellant, after serving department for more than five years, does not deserve to be thrown out even if her selection is found to be against rules. The plea is to be considered in peculiar facts of the case. 12. Tentative Panel was notified on 12th December 2009. Respondent No. 6/writ petitioner lost no time in throwing challenge to Panel on the ground that he with higher merit had a better claim to advertised position. Writ petition - SWP No. 09/2010, however, was held to be premature inasmuch as he had a right to file objections to the Tentative Panel. Once objections were not entertained, he again approached the Court with writ petition, being SWP No. 857/2010. Respondents, unmindful of pendency of petition, went ahead with selection process and engaged appellant as ReT in school in question. Respondent/writ petitioner was left no option but to withdraw petition and re-agitate cause in SWP No. 856/2012. Once objections were not entertained, he again approached the Court with writ petition, being SWP No. 857/2010. Respondents, unmindful of pendency of petition, went ahead with selection process and engaged appellant as ReT in school in question. Respondent/writ petitioner was left no option but to withdraw petition and re-agitate cause in SWP No. 856/2012. It is not a case where appellant has been allowed to serve Government without any challenge from her competitor with better merit. The facts of present case are, therefore, distinguishable from facts of reported cases relied upon by learned counsel for appellant. 13. All appointments to public office, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and others ( AIR 2012 SC 1803 ), are to be made in conformity with mandate of Article 14, Constitution of India. There must not be arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate and selection process must be conducted strictly in accordance with rules. Selection process tainted with arbitrariness cannot stand legal scrutiny and requires to be set-aside. Whenever selection process or outcome thereof is set-aside, selected candidate would be exposed to some inconvenience but that by itself must not dissuade the Court from interfering with results of such process. Equities are to be balanced. In present case, respondent No. 6/writ petitioner was unjustifiably denied selection and consequent appointment. He cannot be, therefore, deprived of right to reap fruits of litigation that he has so relentlessly prosecuted for five long years. For reasons discussed, we do not find any merit in appeal. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.