JUDGMENT : 1. At the very outset, it would be relevant to note here that as per noting of the Registry, there is a deemed service qua respondent Nos. 6 to 8. None appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Therefore, they are proceeded exparte. 2. Advertisement Annexure D was issued for the post of ReT inter alia for GMS Sangaldan. Thereafter, another advertisement Annexure E was issued for the same school advertising three posts of ReT. 3. Petitioner filed the writ petition claiming that GMS Sangaldan is situated in village Bandan, but her application had not been entertained in response to the aforementioned two advertisements on the ground that GMS Sangaldan was situated in village Sangaldan. 4. Mr. Ravinder Gupta learned AAG states that although revenue village in which GMS Sangaldan was located was not mentioned in the advertisement, yet it was clear that the vacancy was for the post of ReT in village Sangaldan in view of the school being located in village Sangaldan. 5. In order to resolve the controversy, this Court vide order dated 03.09.2014 directed Deputy Commissioner, Ramban to submit a report with regard to the location of GMS Sangaldan to ascertain as to whether, GMS Sangaldan was located in revenue village Sangaldan or revenue village Bandan. In response thereto, Deputy Commissioner, Ramban vide his communication No. DCR/PS/1146 dated 01.10.2014 submitted a report that GMS Sangaldan was situated within the territory of revenue village Bandan, though it was very near to revenue village Sangaldan and that revenue village Sangaldan and revenue village Bandan are two separate revenue villages and not a single revenue village. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the aforementioned report of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, it is clear that the action of the respondents in not entertaining the application form of the petitioner for the post of ReT for GMS Sangaldan on the ground that she was resident of village Bandan was legally unsustainable, therefore, entertaining of applications of the residents of village Sangaldan as also excluding application of residents of village Bandan was legally unsustainable. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the categorical report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, it is clear that GMS Sangaldan is located in village Bandan and not village Sangaldan. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the categorical report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, it is clear that GMS Sangaldan is located in village Bandan and not village Sangaldan. Since the selection as per the Government Order 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28.04.2000 is to be made on village level basis, where the school is located, therefore, the action of the respondents in entertaining applications of residents of village Sangaldan while excluding applications of residents of village Bandan is palpably erroneous. 8. In the light of the position as noted above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, select list issued by respondent No.3 vide No. DSEJ/RET/11040 dated 18.08.2014 published in daily “Udaan” Jammu in its issue dated 19.08.2014 to the extent it pertains to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as is based on applications from candidates form village Sangaldan is quashed. Director School Education Jammu i.e. respondent No.2 is directed to take steps to fill up the post in question afresh in accordance with law by taking into account the location of GMS Sangaldan in village Bandan in terms of Government Order No. 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28.04.2000 and the report dated 01.10.2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban. 8 Writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.