JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant who filed the writ petition SWP No. 1908/2014 before the Writ Court which was dismissed on 09.12.2015. The prayer made in the writ petition was to quash the select list/panel prepared by respondent no.4 with respect to two posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem for MS Degwar and GMS Solla Jugal, advertised by respondent no.3 through notification dated 19.07.2012 and direct the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list/panel and include the name of the appellant in the merit list, claiming that she is having higher merit than the candidates included in the merit list. 2. The case put up by the appellant was that respondent no.3 issued advertisement on 9.07.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem for various schools in different zones of District Poonch to fill up the regular vacancies of teachers in far flung areas (socially and economically backward areas) on the pattern of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme and in areas near actual line of control under J&K Reservation Rules. As per the notification, the candidates from revenue village where the school is functioning alone could apply and in case of habitation predominantly inhabitated by SC/ST population, the candidates belonging to these categories only were to be considered for engagement. The minimum qualification prescribed was 10+2. The appellant having passed M. A, B.Ed degrees applied for selection to any one post as she was a local resident of Ward No. 5 village Degwar Mohalla Panditan Tehsil Haveli District Poonch. After receipt of the application of the appellant and other eligible candidates and scrutiny, the respondent no.4 prepared and issued a merit list on 13.11.2012 wherein the name of the appellant was not included. According to the appellant she approached the respondent no.4 and enquired about the reason for her non-inclusion in the merit list. Having not received any reply she approached respondent no.3 by submitting a written representation, who, in turn, asked the respondent no.4 to submit a factual report. The respondent no.4 submitted his report, stating that the school is situated in the area falling under actual line of control and that appellant failed to enclose her ALC certificate with her application form. Having not received any reply she approached respondent no.3 by submitting a written representation, who, in turn, asked the respondent no.4 to submit a factual report. The respondent no.4 submitted his report, stating that the school is situated in the area falling under actual line of control and that appellant failed to enclose her ALC certificate with her application form. According to the appellant, she got married in 2008 with one Sanjay Kumar resident of village Degwar Maldeylin Tehsil Haveli District Poonch and she is residing in her matrimonial home, therefore, she was entitled to be included in the merit list. As no consideration was made even after filing the representation, the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellant has not arrayed the persons named in the select list panel as party respondents and merely because she claimed that she was married in village Degwar and was a resident of the area without the proof, her actual place of residence could not be verified. The Writ Court also considered the low merit possessed by the appellant when compared to the last candidate shown in the select list/panel, namely, Ranjeet Singh, who had secured 59.9% marks in M. A and 57.7% in B. Ed respectively whereas the appellant had secured 53.7% marks in M. A and 46% marks in B.Ed. Thus even if the appellant is considered under ALC category she could not come in the merit list. 3. The said order is challenged in this appeal by contending that the appellant ought to have been placed in the merit list/ panel even though she has not produced the ALC category certificate along with her application form and non-impleading of the persons placed in the merit list can not be a ground to deny the relief to the appellant. 4. We have considered the said submissions. 5. The fact that appellant has not enclosed the resident certificate along with her application form may not be a ground for not considering her candidature and to assess her merit for selection. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant has secured 53.7% marks in M. A and 46% marks in B.Ed degrees when compared to the last candidate empanelled, namely, Ranjeet Singh who has secured 59.9% marks in M. A and 57.7% in B. Ed degrees respectively. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant has secured 53.7% marks in M. A and 46% marks in B.Ed degrees when compared to the last candidate empanelled, namely, Ranjeet Singh who has secured 59.9% marks in M. A and 57.7% in B. Ed degrees respectively. Thus there is no scope for including the name of the appellant in the select list/panel. The Writ Court also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 380 (All India SC & ST Employees' Assn v. A. Arthur Jeen) for the proposition that candidates even though included in the panel showing their provisional selection do not get vested right to appointment, they will be surely interested in protecting and defending the select list. Therefore, they are interested persons to be impleaded in the writ petition while challenging the select list/panel. The said judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court was followed in the decision reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 (Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht), which the Writ Court has followed. Thus the order of the Writ Court stating the two reasons to deny the relief to the appellant is perfectly justified and we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the said order. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.