JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner applied for the post of Teacher in District Kathua in response to an Advertisement issued by the J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board in the year 1985, but was not selected whereupon SWP No.802/1986 was filed challenging the selection of some of the candidates, who, according to the petitioner, were much inferior in merit. At the very outset, it needs noticing that although it has been mentioned in the order of the Writ Court dated 13th September, 1990 in SWP No.802/1986 that prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein and further for issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as teacher, but on the basis of copy of writ petition produced during the hearing, it emerges that prayer of the petitioner in SWP No.802/1986 was as under: “In view of the submissions made hereinabove and those to be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for the posts of teachers made by respondent No.2. Or any other writ, order or direction which your lordship may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner. An affidavit, duly sworn and attested in support of this petition is filed herewith” 2. Evidently, the only prayer made in the aforementioned writ petition was for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein as was made by respondent No.2. 3. That the Writ Court vide order dated 13.09.1990 allowed the aforementioned writ petition. Relevant extract of operative part of the order reads as under: “As it comes out from record that respondent No.3 was PUC whereas respondent No.4 was TDC and respondent No.5 BA previous. Petitioner was a graduate. Certainly the petitioner has a genuine grievance as a graduate has been ignored while only matriculates have been selected. The selection was made in the year 1986 and I think now it will not be proper at this belated stage to quash the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Petitioner was a graduate. Certainly the petitioner has a genuine grievance as a graduate has been ignored while only matriculates have been selected. The selection was made in the year 1986 and I think now it will not be proper at this belated stage to quash the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. While accepting this petition of the petitioner it is directed that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No.1 for his appointment as a teacher against any available vacancy in Kathua District”. 4. A perusal of the prayer in the aforementioned writ petition as well as order of Writ Court dated 13.09.1990 reveals that neither it was prayed that the petitioner be selected and appointed w.e.f the date the private respondents therein had been appointed nor was it so ordered by the Writ Court. 5. Pursuant to the order of the Writ Court dated 13.09.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher w.e.f February, 1991 as is evident from preliminary objection No.1. 6. In the aforementioned background, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in the 1st week of March 2007 praying for the following reliefs: (i). Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the service of the petitioner with effect from the year 1986 along with the candidates who were selected and appointed in his batch of selection who was to be selected and appointed in said selection batch of year 1986 but for discrimination and arbitrariness declared the same and preferred a writ petition no. SWP 802/1986 and directed to be appointed vide judgment dated 13.09.1990 titled Shashi Paul Sharma vs. State of J&K and ors. (ii). Further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix his pay based on the increments accruing to him from the year 1986 para materia with the candidate selected and appointed in his batch of selection of the year 1986 and accordingly grant him the time bound promotion by appropriately fixing his seniority position and consequently consider him for the purpose of promotion as well at par with the other candidates from the year 1986. (iii). Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the light of facts and circumstances of this case be also issued. 7. (iii). Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the light of facts and circumstances of this case be also issued. 7. At the very threshold, two glaring points need noticing here are that firstly, neither did the petitioner make a prayer in SWP No.802/1986 for being appointed w.e.f the date, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein were appointed i.e., w.e.f the year 86 nor did the Writ Court vide order dated 13.09.1990 so order. Secondly, that although the alleged cause of action for seeking appointment accrued w.e.f the year 1986, even if it be presumed to be existing in favour of the petitioner, the same was not agitated before this Court prior to the year 2007 i.e. for a period of 16 years after the appointment of the petitioner in February 1991. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. However, in view of the vehement and persistent arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is decided on merits also. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the learned Writ Court in SWP No.802/1986 having ordered the appointment of the petitioner, the same had to be construed as relating back to the date of appointment of other candidates who were appointed in response to the same advertisement in respect of which the petitioner had also applied. 9. Per contra, learned AAG contended that the matter is no longer res-integra in view of numerous judgments of this Court, namely Judgment dated 23.02.2016 rendered in LPASW 87/2015, Judgment dated 20.05.2010 in SWP No.1266/2010 and judgment dated 22.07.2016 in SWP No.204/2016. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3238 and 2003 (1) JKJ-391. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed SWP No.802/1986 in which as noticed above, there was no prayer for appointment of the petitioner or for appointment w.e.f the date other candidates who applied in response to the same advertisement for which the petitioner had also applied had been appointed nor did the Writ Court while passing order dated 13.09.1990 hold the petitioner entitled to be appointed retrospectively. The petitioner did not for that matter even amend SWP No.802/1986 seeking appointment or for that matter retrospective appointment or for w.e.f the date the other candidates who had applied in response to the same advertisement had been appointed in the year 1986. In the aforementioned background, the prayer in the instant writ petition is that the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher which was given pursuant to the order of the Writ Court dated 13.09.1990 in SWP No. 802/1986 be modified to be retrospectively w.e.f the date, other candidates who had applied in response to the same advertisement had been appointed as Teachers. 12. The question is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for or not. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2016 in SWP No.204/2016 relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Division Bench dated 23.2.2016 in LPASW 87/2015 and order dated 07.06.2016 in SWP No.1245/2010 considered the said issue. Relevant extract of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced here under: “3. It is a fact that the respondent has not prayed for retrospective appointment in the earlier proceedings. A similar issue was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.9415-9416/2008 and by judgment dated 02.05.2011, in respect of RET. Hon’ble the Supreme Court directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as RET w.e.f the date of judgment of writ Court. Hon’ble the Supreme Court further ordered that the said appointment should be without monetary benefits. However, for regularization, the said period was directed to be taken into consideration. In this case, judgment of the writ Court in the earlier proceedings was rendered on 22.02.2007, therefore, the order passed by the writ court granting appointment w.e.f 22.09.2003 stands modified to the effect that the appointment of the petitioner shall be treated from the date of judgment notionally i.e. from 22.02.2007 for the purposes of getting regularization. However, he is entitled to get pecuniary benefits only from the date of joining the post.” 13. On the basis of aforementioned decisions of this Court, learned AAG contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed for in view of no prayer for appointment/retrospective appointment having been made in SWP No.802/1986 nor for that matter, any relief qua retrospective appointment having been granted by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 13.09.1990. On the basis of aforementioned decisions of this Court, learned AAG contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed for in view of no prayer for appointment/retrospective appointment having been made in SWP No.802/1986 nor for that matter, any relief qua retrospective appointment having been granted by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 13.09.1990. In fact, the point in issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in SWP No. 1245/2010. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced here under: “The only question arising in this writ petition, thus, is whether retrospective effect to the engagement of the petitioner from the date when Romesh Kumar was engaged can be granted or not. The fact situation of the case covered under LPA(SW)No.87/2015 disposed of by the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 23.02.2016 is identical to the fact situation of the case on hand. Respondent of that case was given appointment pursuant to and in compliance with the judgment dated 22.02.2007 rendered by the learned writ court in an earlier writ petition, SWP No. 1297/2004, filed by him. In that writ petition the petitioner had not prayed for retrospective appointment. Appointment order was issued in his favour on 17.7.2013. The respondent filed another writ petition, SWP No.2546/2013, in which learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.12.2014 issued direction to the respondents therein to treat the petitioner as having been appointed/engaged as ReT in Government Primary School, Jangwal w.e.f 22.09.2003 though notionally, that is, with effect from the date when Ms. Janko Devi was engaged whose appointment subsequently was found to be illegal and an outcome of fraud. In LPA filed by the respondents, learned Division Bench, while relying upon Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 02.05.2011 in SLP (Civil) 9415-9416/2008, modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appointment of respondent shall be treated from the date of judgment notionally, that is, from 22.02.2007, for the purposes of getting regularization. It is apt to quote paragraphs-3, 4 of the judgment dated 23.02.2016: “3. It is a fact that the respondent has not prayed for retrospective appointment in the earlier proceedings. A similar issue was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.9415-9416/2008 and by judgment dated 02.05.2011, in respect of RET. It is apt to quote paragraphs-3, 4 of the judgment dated 23.02.2016: “3. It is a fact that the respondent has not prayed for retrospective appointment in the earlier proceedings. A similar issue was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.9415-9416/2008 and by judgment dated 02.05.2011, in respect of RET. Hon’ble the Supreme Court directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as RET w.e.f the date of judgment of writ Court. Hon’ble the Supreme Court further ordered that the said appointment should be without monetary benefits. However, for regularization, the said period was directed to be taken into consideration”. In this case, judgment of the writ Court in the earlier proceedings was rendered on 22.02.2007, therefore, the order passed by the writ court granting appointment w.e.f 22.09.2003 stands modified to the effect that the appointment of the petitioner shall be treated from the date of judgment notionally i.e. from 22.02.2007 for the purposes of getting regularization. However, he is entitled to get pecuniary benefits only from the date of joining the post.” 10. The Sanjay Dhar’s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is authority on the proposition whether in such cases retrospective appointment should be allowed or not. It, however, has no relevance to the proposition, whether such a benefit can be allowed in a subsequent writ petition when it was not sought or granted in the earlier petition”. 14. As regards the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is covered by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar vs. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (supra), referred to above, I am afraid that even the said plea of learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance in view of the aforementioned aspect also having been considered in the judgment as referred to above. No doubt Sanjay Dhar's case was an authority on the proposition whether in such cases, retrospective appointment should be allowed or not, but the same has no relevance to the proposition whether such a benefit can be allowed in a subsequent writ petition when said relief was not sought or granted in the earlier petition. Same is the position here. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the aforementioned judgment by contending that the aforementioned judgment is in the case of ReT. Same is the position here. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the aforementioned judgment by contending that the aforementioned judgment is in the case of ReT. I see no reason as to why the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Division Bench and as followed by the learned Writ Court is not applicable in the facts of the instant case merely on the ground that the appointment is not to the post of ReT. Accordingly, I find merit in the submissions made by learned AAG. 16. The case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPASW No.87/2015 in which while taking note of the fact that the selected candidates had not prayed for retrospective appointment in the earlier proceedings, the Hon’ble Division Bench modified the order of the learned Writ Court and ordered that the appointment of the petitioner would be treated w.e.f the date of judgment notionally for the purpose of getting regularization, but for the purpose of grant of pecuniary benefits w.e.f the date of joining the post. Likewise, in SWP No.1245/2010, learned Writ Court while taking note of the fact that the petitioner therein was given appointment pursuant to and in compliance with the judgment of the High Court in an earlier writ petition noted that the petitioner had not prayed for retrospective appointment therein where after petitioner therein had filed another writ petition in which order was passed by the learned Writ Court directing retrospective appointment w.e.f the date when the other candidate was engaged whose appointment was challenged and was subsequently found to be illegal. However, Hon’ble Division Bench while relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 02.05.2011 in SLP No.9415-9416/2008 modified the order passed by the writ court to the effect that appointment of the respondents therein would be treated notionally w.e.f the date of the judgment. Same is the position in the instant case. The petitioner herein had filed SWP No.802/1986 and had merely prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein and had not made any prayer for his being appointed/appointed retrospectively w.e.f the date the said respondents had been appointed. 17. Nevertheless, the petitioner was granted relief of appointment but the learned Writ Court never ordered the retrospective appointment of the petitioner. 3 to 5 therein and had not made any prayer for his being appointed/appointed retrospectively w.e.f the date the said respondents had been appointed. 17. Nevertheless, the petitioner was granted relief of appointment but the learned Writ Court never ordered the retrospective appointment of the petitioner. Neither the petitioner had sought appointment/retrospective appointment nor was any application moved for amending the writ petition. However, the petitioner came to be appointed pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 13.09.1990 in SWP No. No.802/1986. In view thereof, the prayer in the instant writ petition, that too after 16 years of appointment of the petitioner, seeking direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f the date the candidates who had applied in response to the same advertisement had been appointed as Teacher is not maintainable. Accordingly, finding no merit in the plea of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed.