JUDGMENT : D.S. Thakur, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1378/2011. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. An advertisement notice No. 01 of 2009 was issued by the official respondents, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of R-e-T Teacher in various schools in Dansal Zone including Govt. Primary School, Kharta. The petitioner (private respondent No. 5 herein) as also the appellant (private respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) being eligible applied for the two posts advertised for the said school. A panel was prepared by the office of Zonal Education Officer, Dansal in accordance with the merit position, which is reproduced hereunder: Sr. No. Name of the candidate Parentage Category Residence D.O.B. Qual. Marks obtained in  highest  exams % age of marks 1. Rita Devi W/o Sh. Ranbir Singh Gen Kharta 14.03.79 M.A. Hindi, B. Ed. 971/1600 60.68 2. Kavita Kumari D/o Sh. Faqir Singh Gen Kharta 05.08.80 B. Com, B.Ed. 920/1800 51.11 3. Jyoti Devi D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Gen Kharta 15.03.87 B. A. 833/1650 50.48 4. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Davinder Singh Gen Kharta 15.01.80 B. Sc. 807/1650 48.90 4. It appears that against the two vacancies, only one joined and therefore, it was, Jyoti Devi, appellant herein, who would then be eligible for appointment on account of her merit position. Before the appellant could be appointed, the petitioner-Randhir Singh (private respondent No. 5 herein) filed a writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Village Level Panel prepared by the respondents on the ground that the appellant-Jyoti Devi was residing at a distance of more than one and a half kilometer away from the place where the school was situate. 5. According to the petitioner, selection ought to have been made on the basis of Govt. Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. A certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Dansal was placed on record with the writ petition, which read as under: “It is certified that ward Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of revenue village Kharta of Block Dansal, Tehsil and District Jammu is having a population of more than 550/persons that Habitation and the new opened primary school fall in the said ward the distance of Ward Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of revenue village Kharta of Block Dansal, Tehsil and District Jammu is having a population of more than 550/persons that Habitation and the new opened primary school fall in the said ward the distance of Ward Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Kharta in a distance of more than 1.5 kilometer from the other habitation.” 6. It is pertinent to mention here that Govt. Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 envisaged that for purposes of appointments as R-e-T Teacher under the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme, Village means a Revenue Village. However, where habitations in a Revenue Village are scattered, a candidate belonging to a habitation, popularly known as a Village, at least, one kilometer away from other habitations and having a population of more than 300 persons would be entitled to seek engagement as R-e-T Teacher in local school. 7. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner was that the school was situate in Kharta, which was a habitation having a population of more than 300 persons and was at a distance of more than one kilometer away from other habitations and, therefore, he being a local candidate from habitation was alone entitled for appointment. 8. It also needs to be highlighted that according to the circular dated 17.03.2011, the Director School Education, Jammu prescribed that the distance certificate would be valid only, if the same was issued by the AEE, Roads & Building Wing of the Engineering Department or the AEE of the Rural Development Department. Whereas, in regard to the population certificate, the same would be valid if it was issued by the Tehsildar concerned. 9. It was, in those circumstances, that the petition came to be filed wherein the writ court by virtue of an ex parte order dated 20.07.2011 prohibited the respondents from considering the appellant-Jyoti Devi for appointment until further orders. It so happened that during the pendency of the writ petition and the currency of the interim order dated 20.07.2011, the appellant got married on 29.01.2012. 10. The significance of the marriage of the appellant on her right to seek appointment can be understood in the light of the Govt. Order Nos. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 and 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006. 11. By virtue of Govt. 10. The significance of the marriage of the appellant on her right to seek appointment can be understood in the light of the Govt. Order Nos. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 and 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006. 11. By virtue of Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000, eligibility conditions were prescribed for appoint to the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher, which are as follows:- “ELIGIBILITY (i) Rehbar-e-Taleem should be permanent resident of the State. (ii) He or she should belong to the village where there is assessed deficiency of staff. On the certification of Village Level Committee (VLC) that no local candidate from within the village is available, VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village. (iii) He or she should possess the minimum qualification of 10+2. (iv) The candidate shall as far as possible fulfil the age qualification as prescribed by the State Government. (v) Due consideration shall be given by the VLCs to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.” Subsequently, by virtue of Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006, an explanation was added to the aforementioned Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000, which order is reproduced hereunder:- “Government of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Secretariat, Education Department *** *** Subject :- Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme to ensure people’s participation in the management of education at grass root level dated 16.02.0006. Reference :- Judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High court in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004 titled Ranjit Sharma Vs. State and ors. ***** Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 Dated : 28.07.2006. Whereas the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in its order dated 16.2.2006 passed in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004 titled Ranjit Sharma Vs State and ors. Reference :- Judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High court in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004 titled Ranjit Sharma Vs. State and ors. ***** Government Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 Dated : 28.07.2006. Whereas the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in its order dated 16.2.2006 passed in LPA(SW) No. 215/2004 titled Ranjit Sharma Vs State and ors. while deliberating on the eligibility provisions contained in Government order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 desired the harmonization of terms “belong” and “local candidate” through a definition in a manner as would stop generation of any litigation on the subject; Whereas the matter has been examined in the context of the letter and spirit of the scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem as envisaged in Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 and contemporaneous records; Whereas the conceptual framework of the scheme makes it clear that the candidate to be considered for appointment as “Rehbar-e-Taleem” 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; Now therefore, it is ordered that the following Explanation shall add to Clause(I) of the eligibility clause in the Government 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.” By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Government Education Department” 12. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in “Sunita Rajput V/s State and others” 2013 LIC 2710, upheld the applicability of explanation (supra) and set aside the selection of a candidate, who was married in another village as being ineligible in terms of the Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006. 13. Based upon the judgment in Sunita Rajput’s case, the writ court proceeded to allow the writ petition by holding the appellant herein ineligible on account of her not residing in the same village “at the time of appointment”. It is, in these circumstances that the instant letters patent appeal has been preferred against the said judgment. 14. The arguments on both sides were a reiteration of what was urged before the writ Court. 15. It is, in these circumstances that the instant letters patent appeal has been preferred against the said judgment. 14. The arguments on both sides were a reiteration of what was urged before the writ Court. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. It is an undisputed fact that with a view to ensure the success of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and a with a view to strengthen the elementary level of education at the village level and further with a view to prevent absenteeism of teachers in the remote and backward areas, which were away from the gaze and supervision of the higher officers of the Education Department, candidates belonging to the village where the school was existing alone were considered eligible for appointment as R-e-T Teacher. Not only this, by virtue of Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006, an explanation was added that a 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. 17. This explanation, in fact, ousted from the zone of consideration those candidates including girls, who on account of their marriage had moved out of such villages, where the appointments were to be made. There is however no such Govt. order, which could deal with the situation, where a girl candidate would lose her appointment if she subsequently moved out of the village on account of her marriage. In such a case, a girl candidate would continue to remain on the rolls of the establishment as a R-e-T Teacher. 18. The facts in Sunita Rajput’s case, however, appear to be quite dissimilar from the case in hand. In that case, the candidate was not actually residing in the village at the time of the advertisement or even upto the date of her selection, but was a case in which the candidate was married outside the village, but laid a claim for appointment in the said village on the ground that she actually belonged to the said village before marriage. It was, in those circumstances that such a candidate was held to be ineligible. 19. In the present case, the appellant was admittedly eligible for appointment on the date of issuance of the notification. It was, in those circumstances that such a candidate was held to be ineligible. 19. In the present case, the appellant was admittedly eligible for appointment on the date of issuance of the notification. She was also eligible for appointment till the selection process was completed, inasmuch as her name figured in the select panel prepared by the official respondents. 20. Another feature that distinguishes Sunita Rajput’s case from the instant case is that in that case, the Village Level Committee had rejected the candidature of Sunita Rajput but the Director School Education, Jammu had overruled such a recommendation, which is not so in the present case, where the appellant’s name figured in the select panel at Sr. No. 3. 21. It is also an admitted fact that as against two vacancies of R-e-T Teachers, only one joined, therefore, the appellant who stood at Sr. No. 3 in the panel had got a right to appointment against the post of R-e-T Teacher, as she was unmarried which remained unfilled because of the directions issued in the interim order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the writ Court. It is also an admitted fact that the interim order continued to remain in force on 29.01.2012. 22. The entire case of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the selection ought to have been made on habitation basis in accordance with Govt. Order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, inasmuch as, the population of the said habitation was more than 300 persons and it was also situate at a distance of more than one kilometer away from other habitations in the village. But the certificate that had been produced in support of this assertion by the petitioner had been issued by the Block Development Officer, who was not competent or authorized to issue such a certificate in terms of circular dated 17.03.2011, issued by the Director School Education, Jammu. There was little basis, therefore, for the writ Court to issue any prohibitory order restraining the official respondents from appointing the appellant, which order however continued to remain in force till the disposal of the writ petition. 23. It is thus clear that but for the order passed by the learned writ Court dated 20.07.2014, the appellant who was unmarried would have been appointed. 23. It is thus clear that but for the order passed by the learned writ Court dated 20.07.2014, the appellant who was unmarried would have been appointed. It was on account of the interim order passed by the writ Court and during the pendency of the writ petition that a situation arose where the appellant was declared ineligible on account of the application of Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006, which ground was not existing at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner, in fact, succeeded in using the process of the Court upto a point, which would ultimately result in application of the Govt. Order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 24. In our opinion, on the basis of the material, which was on record before the writ Court, there was no prima-facie case made out for purposes of issuance of an interim order dated 20.07.2011, as the certificate which formed the basis of the petitioner’s claim regarding the applicability of the Govt. Order No. 288 was not legal, as the same was issued by an incompetent authority i.e. Block Development Officer. 25. The maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit, can aptly be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner in fact by obtaining the interim order dated 20.07.2011 obtained an unfair advantage against the appellant. The appellant would not have suffered the disqualification if the said order had not been passed. 26. In case titled “South Eastern Coal Fields Limited V/s State of M.P.” (2003) 8 SCC 648 , the Apex Court held as under:- “27. That no one shall suffer for an act of the court is not a rule confined to an erroneous act of the court; the act of the court embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the court may form an opinion in any legal proceeding that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly appraised of the facts and the law. The factor attracting applicability of the restitution is not the act of the court being wrongful or mistake or error committed by the court; the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable has resulted in one party gaining an advantage which it would not have otherwise earned; or the other party has suffered a impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the court and the act of such party.............” 27. The aforementioned judgment was again followed by the Apex Court in case titled “Margret Almedia & ors V/s Bombay Catholic Coop. Housing Society Limited & ors” 2012(2) Supreme 265 . 28. In our opinion, the writ Court committed an error in placing reliance upon Sunita Rajput’s judgment (supra), because the same had no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 29. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2016. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of R-e-T in accordance with her merit within a period of four weeks’ from today. 30. Disposed of as above along with connected MP.