JUDGMENT : B.S. WALIA, J. 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 by virtue of which the words 'belong' & 'local candidate' mentioned in the R-e-T Scheme have been explained to mean 'a person actually residing in the village at the time of appointment' on account of the same being ultra vires of the Constitution and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner in particular and female candidates in general as the same created discrimination on the basis of sex; with a further prayer for quashing of the selection and proposed engagement of private respondents in the panel prepared by the official respondents for their engagement under R-e-T scheme. Prayer has also been made for the issuance of directions to official respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of R-e-T teacher pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. CEO/RET/4823-27, dated 15.05.2012 and DIP/JK-1048/2012. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that vide Advertisement Notification No. CEO/RET/4823-27, dated 15.05.2012 and DIP/JK-1048/2012, (Annexure-B), vacancies were advertised under the R-e-T Scheme for different zones including the one in Zone Assar at UPS Marsoo. As per the advertisement Annexure B, minimum qualification prescribed were 10+2 with Math or Science background from recognized Board/University. 2. That as per averments in the Writ Petition, the petitioner being 10+2 in Science with Biology as one of the subjects, applied in response to the notification on account of fulfilling the eligibility conditions/criteria under the afore said notification. It is further averred that in response to the advertisement Annexure B, the respondents received applications from eligible candidates including the petitioner and ultimately tentative select list was prepared by the official respondents wherein the names of the private respondents appeared along with one Gita Devi, who is stated to have given up her claim for engagement, while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4 in the list of candidates having applied pursuant to the advertisement. Petitioner was not aware about the issuance of aforesaid tentative list as well as the final list prepared by the official respondents and received copy of the select list prepared by the official respondents only under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure-E. 3. Petitioner was not aware about the issuance of aforesaid tentative list as well as the final list prepared by the official respondents and received copy of the select list prepared by the official respondents only under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure-E. 3. That it is the stand of the petitioner that during the currency of the selection process, she got married on 25.07.2012 but despite her marriage was actually residing in her parental home with occasional visits to her matrimonial home. However, her name was struck off from the list of eligible candidates on the ground of her having got married outside the revenue village where the vacancy had arisen and as a consequence thereof private respondents were placed in the zone of consideration. It is further the categorical stand of the petitioner that the private respondents were not eligible for appointment to the post of R-e-T in Science stream on account of being graduates in Arts subject and not possessing the qualification of Science (Biology) as one of the subjects in 10+2 in terms of advertisement notification read with the R-e-T Scheme and policy in force, as per which, a candidate for being selected in Math or Science stream was required to possess Math or Medical subjects respectively for engagement as R-e-T in Maths or Science stream. On the basis of the same, it has been pleaded that the private respondents being ineligible, their placement in the tentative panel was illegal besides an outcome of sheer non-application of mind. It is in the afore mentioned background that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court aggrieved by her exclusion from consideration and at the same time on account of accord of consideration to the private respondents despite said respondents being ineligible. It is in the afore mentioned background that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court aggrieved by her exclusion from consideration and at the same time on account of accord of consideration to the private respondents despite said respondents being ineligible. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought quashing of the placement of the private respondents in the tentative list of candidates and for directions to the official respondents to select her for filling up the vacancy in UPS Marsoo in Science stream, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (i) Firstly, that the ouster/exclusion of the petitioner from the zone of consideration solely on account of her having solemnized marriage outside the revenue village was violative of her fundamental rights, therefore unconstitutional; (ii) Secondly, that the policy/scheme of R-e-T could not have the effect of ousting a female candidate merely because of her having got married outside the revenue village in spite of the fact that she was actually residing in the village where vacancy had arisen. Even otherwise, the clarification that a person/candidate should be actually residing in the village where the vacancy had arisen amounted to hostile discrimination against female candidates and causing discrimination on the basis of sex, was prohibited under the Constitution; (iii) That the object behind introducing the words 'actually residing' in the R-e-T scheme was to cover up the suffering of students on account of the absence of teachers from the school because of their non availability in the village, but a female candidate, who was otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement notification as on the cut-off date, if married outside the revenue village, lost her right of consideration solely on the ground that she may not be available for performing duty after marriage, outside the revenue village and the same was a misplaced consideration vis-a-vis. a candidate who solemnized marriage after appointment as R-e-T; (iv) That the petitioner, who, otherwise was eligible on the cut-off date, was sought to be tested 'beyond the cut-off date', which was impermissible in law. 4. Objections have been filed taking preliminary objections that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and no cause of action has accrued so as to enable her to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, that the Writ petition involved disputed question of facts, that the words "Belong and Local candidate" explained in Govt. 4. Objections have been filed taking preliminary objections that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and no cause of action has accrued so as to enable her to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, that the Writ petition involved disputed question of facts, that the words "Belong and Local candidate" explained in Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 (Annexure-Rl) had been inserted by Respondent No. 1 in compliance to the decision of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dated 16.02.2006 in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004, titled 'Ranjeet Sharma v. State & Ors.' and in view thereof the explanation was neither ultra vires the constitution nor discriminatory in nature, that the tentative panel was framed and displayed w.e.f. 27.09.2012 upto 03.10.2012 in the concerned village for calling objections but the marriage was solemnized on 25.07.2012, therefore, the panel in question had rightly been framed in the light of the directions of the High Court and Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006. Further that private respondents were 10+2 with Biology plus graduation in Arts, therefore, the panel had been framed mentioning the private respondents at Serial No. 1 in light of the standing norms of selection, that on receipt of intimation that the petitioner had got married outside the revenue village on 25.07.2012, Respondent No. 2 had framed the panel in terms of interpretation given in Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 and thereafter displayed the panel w.e.f. 27.09.2012 upto 03.10.2012 in the said village calling objections from the interested persons. 5. The impugned action has been sought to be defended on the ground that a female candidate once engaged as R-e-T on the basis of PRC issued prior to her marriage was compelled by the circumstances either to get herself attached/deployed at her place of marriage or sometimes became a subject of absenteeism because initially the appointment of R-e-T is specific with respect to the school and is non-transferable till promotion to the next grade as per the mandate of Govt. Order No. 111 of 2011. In the light of afore mentioned position, prayer has been made for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. A perusal of Govt. Order No. 111 of 2011. In the light of afore mentioned position, prayer has been made for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. A perusal of Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 i.e. Annexure-R1, reveals that on consideration of the conceptual frame work of the scheme, it is clear that a candidate to be considered for appointment as R-e-T should be actually residing at the time of his/her appointment in the village in which the deficiency has been assessed and therefore, any view to the contrary would not be in conformity with the objectives and the concept of the scheme. In the afore mentioned background, following explanation was added to clause (I) of the eligibility clause in the Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000:- "Explanation: The word 'belong' and 'local candidate' shall mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made." 7. That stand has also been taken in the objections that it was incorrect that Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 did not have Science (Biology) as one of the subjects in 10+2 in view of Annexure-R3, that the name of the petitioner was excluded from the panel since she was married prior to the preparation of the panel as was displayed w.e.f. 27.09.2012 upto 03.10.2012, that as per Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006, select panel had been issued in compliance to the direction of the High Court passed in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004, titled 'Ranjeet Sharma v. State & Ors.', according to which, the words 'belong' and 'local candidate' had been interpreted to mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time when the appointment was to be made. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as 2013 (2) JKJ 507 [HC] in case 'Sunita Rajput v. State & Ors.' in which it has been held that right of consideration in R-e-T is linked with actual residence in the village/habitation and not birth in such village/habitation or any other like connection with the village; and further that a candidate married outside the village is not entitled to be considered for engagement/appointment as R-e-T in the said village. Paragraphs 15 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:- "15. Paragraphs 15 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:- "15. The Government order likewise visualizes the role of ReT in achieving the goal of universalisation of elementary education in following words. "Drawn from the local community, the accountability of the teacher called as 'Rehbar-e-Taleem' would be immediate providing from constant inter face and interaction with community to secure universal enrolment and to check the incidence of the drop outs." 16. The Government order, whereby ReT Scheme has been sanctioned, therefore, insists on appointment/engagement of a local candidate as Rehbar-e-Taleem so that he is available to the student community with least difficulty, has not to embark on a journey every morning to attend the school and is left with no excuse to stay away from his duty. The expression, "belongs to" the village is to be understood in the background of the role expected a ReT to play as reproduced above and the duty placed on Village Level Committee to "draw up" a panel of "eligible, qualified persons form the village", having regard to the purposes of the scheme. We have to go for purposive interpretation of the expression "belongs to" the village and nut divorced from the object sought to be achieved. It would therefore, follow that to be eligible for ReT position in a local school, the candidate must be actually residing in the village/habitation where the school is established. The right of consideration for ReT position is linked with actual residence in the village/habitation and not birth in such village/habitation or any other like connection with the village. 17. For a girl married in another village or town it would not be possible to perform the duties of ReT conceptualized under Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000, in a school in her parental village, in the manner such duties would be performed by a candidate "actually residing" in that village/habitation, though she may have emotional bonds with her parental village. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000, in a school in her parental village, in the manner such duties would be performed by a candidate "actually residing" in that village/habitation, though she may have emotional bonds with her parental village. Interpreting the expressions "belongs to" drawn from the local community, "the accountability of the teacher called as 'Rehbar-e-Taleem' would be immediate providing from constant interface and interaction with community to secure universal enrolment and to check the incidence of the drop outs", in such a manner as to hold that a candidate not actually residing in a village/habitation would be eligible for ReT position' in such village/habitation, only because he has some kind of connection with the village, is bound to frustrate the very object of ReT scheme. For such a proposition would entitle even a candidate actually residing hundred kilometers away e.g. a girl married in a village hundred kilometres away from the village where ReT position is available, eligible for such position and render ReT scheme incapable of redressing the mischief of absenteeism in schools, proposed to be redressed by augmenting the teaching staff by a local appointee. 18. The State Government has rightly vide Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 added following explanation to Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 "Explanation: the word 'belong' and "local candidate" shall mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made". 19. ReT Scheme achieved the intended object to meet the staff requirements of school located in difficult inaccessibly and far flung areas where teachers from other places would not ordinarily attend the duties, and was accordingly, closed. It was followed by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme-a centrally sponsored Scheme-to attain universalisation of elementary education by community ownership of school system. Since the goals set out in SSA Scheme are identical to the objectives of ReT Scheme, the State Government vide Order No. 1678-Edu of 2003, dated 4th December, 2003, while introducing SSA Scheme decided to follow ReT Scheme in the matter of recruitment of teacher teaching guides. The above discussion, therefore, is relevant to engagement/appointments made under SSA Scheme. 20. Since the goals set out in SSA Scheme are identical to the objectives of ReT Scheme, the State Government vide Order No. 1678-Edu of 2003, dated 4th December, 2003, while introducing SSA Scheme decided to follow ReT Scheme in the matter of recruitment of teacher teaching guides. The above discussion, therefore, is relevant to engagement/appointments made under SSA Scheme. 20. The view taken by the writ Court in SWP No. 351/2006, titled Sunita Rajput v. State & Ors., against the backdrop of above discussion is in conflict with the purpose and object of ReT/SSA Scheme. The view taken by the writ Court that a candidate though not actually residing in the village where the school, having ReT position vacant is located would still be eligible for such position, in case he has his roots in the village or some other connection with the village is untenable for the simple reason that such a view offends letter and spirit of Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 read with Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006. 21. The argument that "explanation", clarifying meaning of expression "be longs to the village" was made in the year 2006, while selection process in question was initiated and concluded much earlier, would not make any difference. The "explanation" to a legal provision does not create any new rights. The "explanation" on the other hand explains words, phrases and expressions as these stood on the date the rules came into existence and is to be given effect from such date. 22. For the reasons discussed we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge in SWP No. 351/2006, titled Sunita Rajput v. State & Ors. The view taken by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1647/2004, titled Rajni Sharma v. State & Ors., 2011 (1) JKJ 330 [HC], on the other hand is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. 23. Viewed thus, LPA No. 183/2010, is allowed and the writ Court order dated 13.12.2010 is set aside. Resultantly, Order No. DSET/RET/5867, dated 31.05.2005, is quashed and the official respondents directed to engage the appellant in LPA No. 183/2010, as ReT in Middle School, Babliana, against the vacancy that becomes available in wake of quashment of the aforesaid order. The respondents shall comply with the order within four weeks by 30th April, 2013. Resultantly, Order No. DSET/RET/5867, dated 31.05.2005, is quashed and the official respondents directed to engage the appellant in LPA No. 183/2010, as ReT in Middle School, Babliana, against the vacancy that becomes available in wake of quashment of the aforesaid order. The respondents shall comply with the order within four weeks by 30th April, 2013. 24. LPA No. 125/2009, is dismissed. 25. The Village Level Committee as discussed above, is assigned a pivotal role vide Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000, in preparation of panel for ReT vacancy(ies) proposed to be filled up. Once the Village Level Committee rejects the candidature of the private respondent as also the candidates figuring at Serial No. 1 and 3 on the ground that they were not actually residing in the village, there was no reason for Director School Education, Jammu-Respondent No. 3 in the appeal to selectively act on the recommendations of the Village Level Committee and while ignoring candidates at Serial No. 1 and 3 in the panel engaged private respondents, overruling such recommendations. On taking a holistic view of ReT/SSA Scheme, it becomes clear that the recommendations made by Village Level Committee cannot be rejected and orders passed contrary to such recommendations by an officer in the education department at any level including that of Director School Education. In such a case, right course would be to return the recommendations, in case the recommendations are found contrary to the rules and ask the Village Level Committee to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by. The Director School, Education, therefore acted against spirit of the Scheme, while passing engagement order in favour of private respondents notwithstanding the view taken by the Village Level Committee that she was not eligible as she was married in a village other than one where the school having ReT position vacant, was located." 8. The Director School, Education, therefore acted against spirit of the Scheme, while passing engagement order in favour of private respondents notwithstanding the view taken by the Village Level Committee that she was not eligible as she was married in a village other than one where the school having ReT position vacant, was located." 8. That a perusal of the extract reproduced hereinabove reveals that the expression "belongs to" drawn from the local community, "the accountability of the teacher called as 'Rehbar-e-Taleem' provides for constant interface and interaction with the community to secure universal enrolment and to check the incidence of drop outs, therefore, the requirement for appointment/engagement of a local candidate as R-e-T so that such candidate was available to the student community with least difficulty, did not have to embark on a journey every morning to attend school and was left with no excuse to stay away from duty. Therefore, the expression 'belongs to' the village is to be understood in the background of the role expected of a R-e-T as referred to above. In the afore mentioned background, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that the right of consideration for R-e-T was linked with actual residence in the village/habitation and not birth in such village/habitation or any other like connection with the village; and that for a girl married in another village or town it would not be possible to perform the duties of R-e-T conceptualized under Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 in a school in her parental village in the manner such duties would be performed by a candidate 'actually residing' in that village/habitation, though she may have emotional bonds with her parental village. Therefore, State Government had rightly vide Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 added following expression to Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000:- "Explanation: the word 'belong' and 'local candidate' shall mean that the candidate to be appointed should be actually residing at the time of appointment in the village where the appointment is to be made." 9. That viewed in the aforementioned context, Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 is justified particularly, in view of the fact, that R-e-T scheme is intended to achieve the staff requirements of schools located in difficult, inaccessible and far flung areas where teachers from other places would not ordinarily attend duties. That viewed in the aforementioned context, Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 is justified particularly, in view of the fact, that R-e-T scheme is intended to achieve the staff requirements of schools located in difficult, inaccessible and far flung areas where teachers from other places would not ordinarily attend duties. The Hon'ble Division Bench overruled the view taken by the Writ Court in SWP No. 351/2006, titled 'Sunita Rajput v. State & Ors.' that a candidate though not actually residing in the village where the school having R-e-T position vacant is located would still be eligible for such position, in case such candidate had roots in the village or some other connection with the village, on the ground that such a view offended letter and spirit of Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 read with Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1647/2004, titled 'Rajni Sharma v. State & Ors.' reported as 2011 (1) JKJ 330 [HC], on the other hand was held to be in accordance with law and not calling for any interference. 10. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the action impugned in the writ petition is immune from challenge, on account of the same being in accordance with the mandate of Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, dated 28.04.2000 read with Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006, dated 28.07.2006 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case titled 'Sunita Rajput v. State & Ors.' reported as 2013 (2) JKJ 507 [HC]. The Writ Petition being bereft of merit is liable to be dismissed. Same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs.