JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No. 6 stood disengaged as a cook by the SMC concerned. Her disengagement as unfolded by Annexure P-1 stood spurred by the factum of hers purportedly holding residence in a Panchayat other than the Panchayat whereat the school whereat she stood engaged as a cook by the respondent concerned was located. Her disengagement by the respondent concerned on the anvil of clause 6(c) of the apposite guidelines which stands extracted hereinafter standing attracted qua her, stood constituted by the factum of hers purportedly holding her residence in a Panchayat other than the Panchayat whereat the school whereat she stood engaged by the respondent concerned was located, would hold validation only when material hereat stands evinced of though in the Panchayat whereat she holds residence, Panchayat whereof purportedly adjoins the relevant Panchayat whereat she stood engaged yet not holding thereat any GSSS/GHS/ GMS/GPS at the time contemporaneous to her engagement. “(c) The candidates belonging to such adjacent Gram Panchayats where there is no GSSS/GHS/GMS/GPS shall have the opportunity with him/her to apply for the post of Cook cum helper falling vacant in the equivalent school situated in the adjacent Panchayats.” 2. The learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted before this Court of at the time contemporaneous to hers standing engaged as a cook, she held residence within the domain of the Gram Panchayat concerned whereat the School concerned wherein she stood appointed stood located. He with specificity urges of respondent No.6 holding residence within the territorial domain of Gram Panchayat Udeen within whose territorial domain also the school whereat she stood appointed stands located. Consequently, given hers holding residence in village Udeen which forms part of the territorial limits of Gram Panchayat Udeen besides with the apposite school whereat she stood appointed also standing located within the territorial limits of Gram Panchayat Udeen, unveils of hers satiating the criteria embodied in clause (b) of the apposite guidelines, which stands extracted hereinafter predominantly with hers apparently establishing of hers holding residence within the domain of the Gram Panchayat, concerned whereat the relevant school stands located whereupon concomitantly she stood eligiblised to obtain appointment thereat in the relevant capacity. Consequently, hence the vigor of relevant clause (c) invoked by the respondent concerned for disengaging respondent No.6, barring any aspirant who holds residence in a Panchayat adjoining the relevant Panchayat to aspire for the coveted post unless in the Panchayat adjoining the apposite Panchayat no GSSS/GHS/GMS/GPS stand located stands diminished rather stands omnibusly eclipsed rendering its attraction qua respondent No.6 by the SMC concerned to be grossly fallacious. “(b) Permanent resident of the village/Gram Panchayat/ Urban local body of the area, in which the school is located.” 3. The respondent No.6 herein had constituted her challenge to Annexure P-1 by instituting a Civil Writ Petition before this Court which stood disposed of by this Court with the following directions:- “The petitioner may bring her grievance to the notice of the second respondent in which case the second respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, after hearing the affected parties also. In case the due and admissible wages/remunerations have not been paid to the petitioner, the same shall also be paid. This shall be done with a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the second respondent.” 4. In consequence to the decision recorded by this Court in CWP No. 5095 of 2011 the respondent concerned under Annexure R-3 proceeded to reengage respondent No. 6 as a cook in the School concerned. For validating the decision (Ex. R-3) rendered by the respondent concerned, it was incumbent upon it to prior to its re-engaging respondent No.6 afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. A perusal of the relevant records reveals of the respondent concerned prior to its recording its decision comprised in Ex. R-3 its affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently the decision rendered by the respondent concerned comprised in Annexure R-3 whereby respondent No.6 stood reengaged in service does not infract any principle of natural justice nor it can be held of the respondent concerned while recording its decision comprised in Annexure R-3 its condemning unheard the petitioner herein. 5. Consequently the decision rendered by the respondent concerned comprised in Annexure R-3 whereby respondent No.6 stood reengaged in service does not infract any principle of natural justice nor it can be held of the respondent concerned while recording its decision comprised in Annexure R-3 its condemning unheard the petitioner herein. 5. Even otherwise given the inference drawn hereinabove of the disengagement in service of respondent No. 6 under Annexure P-1 on the purported ground of her initial appointment suffering invalidation arouse-able from hers holding residence in a Panchayat adjoining the relevant Panchayat whereat the apposite school stands located, also preeminently in the Panchayat wherein she purportedly holds residence there being purportedly no GSSS/GHS/GMS/GPS at the time contemporaneous to her engagement in service by the respondent concerned rather not rendering hence her engagement by the respondent concerned in the School concerned to suffer invalidation spurring from any purported infraction of relevant clause (C) of the apposite guidelines standing begotten. Consequently, when this Court has discountenanced the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for rendering the initial engagement in service of respondent No.6 by the respondent concerned suffering invalidation, submission whereof stood anchored upon the purported apposite attraction qua respondent No.6 of the apposite clause (c) of the apposite guidelines, it appears hence of the decision recorded by the respondent concerned under Annexure R-3 being in consonance with the inference recorded hereinabove besides being in consonance with the decision recorded by this Court comprised in Annexure R-1. Now the apposite principle constituted in clause (e) of the guidelines concerned which stands extracted hereinafter embodying the principle of Last Come First Go, warrants its application hereat, for rendering valid or invalid the dispensing of the service of the petitioner by the respondent concerned. For applying the principle of “Last Come First Go” constituted in the apposite guidelines, it is imperative to unearth from the apposite records, the prime factum of the petitioner herein or respondent No.6 herein standing engaged earlier in service by the respondent concerned. An answer thereto stands purveyed by Annexure P-1. An incisive perusal of Annexure P-1 unfolds the factum of respondent No.6 standing disengaged by the SMC concerned from the school concerned where after the petitioner herein came to be appointed in her place. An answer thereto stands purveyed by Annexure P-1. An incisive perusal of Annexure P-1 unfolds the factum of respondent No.6 standing disengaged by the SMC concerned from the school concerned where after the petitioner herein came to be appointed in her place. Since this Court has recorded an inference hereinabove qua the disengagement of respondent No.6 holding no validity arouse-able from the respondent concerned inappropriately applying the relevant clause of the apposite guidelines which stands extracted hereinabove. “e. In case, the cook-cum-helper become surplus due to revision of norms for hiring of cook-cum-helper or decline in the enrollment or merged from school/institution, principle of LAST COME, FIRST GO will apply and the contract of person selection on latter date will be terminated without given any prior notice.” 6. In conjunction therewith the further factum of the petitioner herein standing appointed, on respondent No.6 standing disengaged in service, rests the factum of the petitioner herein coming to be appointed as a cook only after hers replacing respondent No.6 in the School concerned. Since Annexure P-1 suffers the fate of invalidation necessarily hence her appointment as a cook in the school concerned is to relate back to the date of her initial appointment thereupon it is to be conclusively held of with the petitioner herein subsequently replacing her, whereas the respondent No.6 obviously held the relevant post earlier to the post aforesaid standing held by the petitioner herein. Consequently, with the respondent no. 6 standing appointed earlier vis-à-vis the petitioner herein the principle of “Last Come First Go” warrants its application qua the petitioner herein. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.