JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner, who filed SWP No. 1823/2006, which having been dismissed by order dated 05.09.2014, this appeal is preferred. 2. The case of the appellant before the writ Court was to quash the appointment of 8th respondent as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government Primary School, Peer Kho, contending that the appellant was the only candidate eligible as per notification dated 29.06.2004 and her name figured at serial No. 1 in the panel. The 8th respondent did not apply pursuant to the said notification dated 29.06.2004, however, she was appointed. 3. The case of 8th respondent on the other hand was that applications were invited on 17.07.2003 for two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem for Government Primary School Peer Kho and two candidates, namely, Anu Radha Samyal and Shallu were selected and the said Shallu did not join, therefore, the 8th respondent, who was in the wait list alone has to be appointed as her name was in the wait list. The contention of the appellant was that the said Shallu joined and resigned, therefore, the said vacancy cannot be filled up by operating the wait list. The learned Single Judge has considered the said issue by relying on the letter of said Shallu, stating that she refused to join due to personal reasons, which were reflected in the letter given by her dated 24.03.2004, stating that the school in which she was selected under RRT scheme is very far away from her residence, so it was not possible for her to manage to attend the school regularly, so she was not interested to join against the said post and was resigning the RET post. 4. The learned Single Judge noticing the fact that the said Shallu having not joined the post, the question of resignation does not arise, therefore, the vacancy was to be treated as 2nd vacancy in terms of notification issued on 17.07.2003 and the 8th respondent having been placed in the wait list, she was rightly given appointment and rejected the case of the appellant. 5. Heard Mr. Sumit Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. It is a fact that the question of resignation will arise only if a person joins in the post. 5. Heard Mr. Sumit Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. It is a fact that the question of resignation will arise only if a person joins in the post. Here in this case, the selectee expressed her inability to join and in fact she also not joined at any point of time, therefore, the question of resignation will not arise. In such circumstances, the writ Court was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Further, the appellant was not the applicant as per notification issued in the year 2003. Her second contention was that the 8th respondent did not have the eligibility as she was not a resident of the Ward in which the school was located. The said contention was considered by the writ Court by holding that the appellant having not applied for selection pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2003, she has no locus standi to question the appointment of 8th respondent. The said findings rendered by the writ Court are just and proper, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.