JUDGMENT : 1. In the Civil Revision 31/2013, order dated 19-03-2013, is impugned. In terms whereof preliminary issue relatable to the jurisdiction of the court has been decided in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No. 6 herein). The issue framed is as under: (i) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the matter? O.P.D. 2. In OWP No. 1112/2014, order dated 09-06-2014, passed by the learned trial court (Sub Judge Anantnag) is impugned in terms whereof application of the petitioner (defendant No. 7 in the suit) for permission to amend the written statement has been rejected. 3. Litigation between the parties commenced with the institution of the suit titled Bilal Ahmad Mir versus State and Others on 12-03-2005. Thereafter, various orders passed in the civil suit have been challenged from time to time. 4. The centre of controversy between the parties is post of Rehbar-i-Taleem teacher (ReT). The precise factual background is advantageous to be noticed: (a) Vide Advertisement Notice No. CEO/A/SSA/9797-816 dated 18th November 2004, issued by the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, applications were invited for filling up two posts of ReT to be engaged in Govt. Middle School, Dupatyar, Bijbehera (created under SSA) during the year 2003-04. (b) Petitioner herein on proper selection was engaged as ReT teacher vide Order No. CEO/SSA/05/131-42 dated 4th March 2005, issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Bijbehera, as such has been working continuously till date. (c) Respondent No. 7 (plaintiff) filed a suit before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Anantnag, in the year 2005, wherein he has pleaded that his merit is superior as compared to the defendant (petitioner herein). Defendant (petitioner herein) had pleaded that the respondent No. 7 (plaintiff) was ineligible because his age was below 18 years as on 1st January 2004. (d) On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, two preliminary issues as were decided are quoted as under: (i) Whether the suit is not maintainable by application of Article 37 of the Civil Service Regulation? OPD 4 and 5. (ii) Whether the suit is bad for violation of the provisions of Sections 80 C.P.C? O.P.D 4 and 5. (e) Both the issues were decided against the defendant No. 4 and 5. As against that judgment, revision was filed by the present petitioner (defendant therein) which was decided on 18-12-2008. OPD 4 and 5. (ii) Whether the suit is bad for violation of the provisions of Sections 80 C.P.C? O.P.D 4 and 5. (e) Both the issues were decided against the defendant No. 4 and 5. As against that judgment, revision was filed by the present petitioner (defendant therein) which was decided on 18-12-2008. This Court took a view that Article 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter for short referred to as CSR) is not applicable for the simple reason that the said Article relates to the age of direct recruitment to the Government service in subordinate and gazette services. The plaintiff (respondent) was required to be 18 years of age as on the last date of receipt of application i.e. 20th November 2004. On 20th November 2004, plaintiff(respondent) admittedly was above 18 years of age. The engagement under ReT Scheme cannot be said to be a recruitment to any service. The Court further observed as under: “It appears that the trial court has not framed issues relating to the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is for the trial court to consider whether issue is to be framed while keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and law applicable”. (f) It is in pursuance to the said Judgment, the trial court has framed the issue to the following effect: “Whether the court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? (OPD) (g) As quoted hereinabove, the finding has been returned against the defendant (petitioner herein) which is impugned in Civil Revision 31/2013 as referred to above. 5. There has been a latter development i.e. the Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No. 168/2008 vide judgment dated 13-04-2010 reported in 2010(1) S. L. J. 253, has held that Article 37 of CSR is applicable to RET teachers. Para 39 and 40 are relevant to be quoted: “39. 5. There has been a latter development i.e. the Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No. 168/2008 vide judgment dated 13-04-2010 reported in 2010(1) S. L. J. 253, has held that Article 37 of CSR is applicable to RET teachers. Para 39 and 40 are relevant to be quoted: “39. We accordingly for the above reasons and also in view of the stand taken by the State that lower and upper age prescribed for making selection/ appointment against posts under the Government is being applied to the posts under the Scheme as well, we hold that the words “as far as possible” used in the scheme are to be read down and we have already held in this judgment that the lower and upper age prescribed by the Government for seeking appointment against the posts under the government shall be deemed to be the lower and upper age limit fixed for seeking selection/ engagement under the scheme as well. The Article 37 of the CSR V. 1 will thus, get attracted and applicable to the selection/engagement made under the scheme as well. 40. For the reasons, we have recorded in this judgment for arriving at the above finding we hold that the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Mohammad Altaf Mir’s case (2009) 1 SLJ 253 to the extent it holds that Article 37 of the CSR is not applicable to the engagement under the Scheme, is not correct view of law and we accordingly over rule the said judgment to the said extent. The other issue raised in that judgment being not issue before us so we accordingly do not deal with that part of the judgment.” 6. In Para 40 referred above, the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge dated 18-12-2008 reported in 2009 (1) SLJ 253, in so for it held that Regulation 37 of CSR is not applicable to the engagement under the Scheme is not a correct view of law. Judgment to the said extent has been overruled. However, in concluding part of Para 42 of the referred LPA judgment, it has been opined as under: “…..All the appointments made prior to the pronouncement of this judgment on the basis of Clause IV of eligibility clause of Scheme shall not be disturbed”. Judgment to the said extent has been overruled. However, in concluding part of Para 42 of the referred LPA judgment, it has been opined as under: “…..All the appointments made prior to the pronouncement of this judgment on the basis of Clause IV of eligibility clause of Scheme shall not be disturbed”. Means if a candidate has been appointed on the basis of outer age of limit as prescribed then appointment shall not be disturbed” 7. Law as laid down by the Division Bench that the Article 37 of CSR is applicable to the ReT teachers under ReT scheme, therefore, age has to be determined as per Regulation 37 CSR i.e. a candidate must be 18 years of age as on 1st January of the year of notification. Notification admittedly has been issued in the year 2004 and admittedly on 01-01-2004, respondent (Bilal Ahmad Mir) was below 18 years of age. When it is so, then to contest the suit shall be futile because the result is obviously a failure. 8. The important question as arises for determination, which will finally settle the controversy between the parties, is as under: “(i) Whether finding returned in the Civil Revision No.51/2006 regarding non-applicability of Regulation 37 of CSR in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) and against the petitioner (defendant) will bind the parties, despite said position i.e. non-applicability of Article 37 CSR having been overruled by the Division Bench in another judgment rendered in LPA No.168/2008 dated 13.04.2010, referred to hereinabove. If answer is in negative, then entire proceedings are to be truncated.” 9. The judgement rendered in Civil Revision No.51/2006 regarding non-applicability of Regulation no 37 CSR has been specifically over ruled, when it is so, it is binding. Then in terms of Regulation No 37 respondent Bilal Ahmed (plaintiff) as on 01-01-2004 was below 18 years of age as is the admitted position, therefore, was ineligible as a result where of continuation of suit proceedings shall be otiose because failure of suit is inevitable. To allow continuation of suit or to allow amendment of written statement shall be simply a formality. 10. For the stated reasons both the petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly, as a result whereof the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. 11. Copy of the order be sent to trial court for information.