JUDGMENT : GITA MITTAL, J. 1. By way of the instant appeal, challenge is laid to the judgment dated 15th December, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing SWP No.09/2011 entitled Sushma Kumari v. State of J&K and others. 2. A simple matter of appointment/ engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government Girls Middle School, Bakore & Government Middle School (Boys), Bakore. The selection process which commenced by virtue of advertisement notice no.665 dated 23rd November, 2001, became the subject matter of multiple writ petitions, and has remained pending for over seventeen years, first before the writ court and then in the present appeal. We consequently examine the factual background to this case in some detail. 3. Before encapsulate the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal hereafter. Factual Background 4. As noted above, by the advertisement notice dated 23rd November, 2001, applications were invited for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in several institutions. The notice inviting applications stated that applications were invited from the “local candidates of the concerned village, Moharas”, where the particular institutions are situated. It appears that the appellant—Meena Sharma, who is a resident of village Chak-Koura, Tehsil Akhnoor, as well as the private respondent no.5—Sushma Kumari, a resident of village Bakore, both applied for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in the Government Girls Middle School, Bakore. 5. The Village Level Committee (“VLC” hereafter) prepared a select list wherein Meena Sharma, resident of Chak-Koura, was recommended for engagement. Two other persons-Sanjeev Kumar and Anjana Kumari also figured in the select list. The respondents did not give effect to the select list approved by the Village Level Committee and again invited applications for filling up the Rehbar-e-Taleem posts. 6. It appears that on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, who was the Chairperson of the Selection Committee, a fresh advertisement was issued for filling up the posts and a selection panel was prepared by the respondents. In this selection panel, again, the appellant-Meena Sharma, was figuring at serial no.11 and Sushma Kumari- the private respondent no.5 at serial no.14. It is noteworthy that in this select list, there was a note un-equivocally stating that candidates figuring at serial nos. 10 to 13 are the residents of adjoining village Chak-Koura, that is to say that the appellant (at serial No. 11) was not resident of Bakore where the school was admittedly located. It is noteworthy that in this select list, there was a note un-equivocally stating that candidates figuring at serial nos. 10 to 13 are the residents of adjoining village Chak-Koura, that is to say that the appellant (at serial No. 11) was not resident of Bakore where the school was admittedly located. It is the case of the appellant that there was no school in village Chak-Koura and consequently candidates from this village were considered for engagement in the Government Girls Middle School, Bakore, which is claimed to be in the close vicinity of the village Bakore. We are called upon to consider the correctness of this contention. We shall do so a little later. 7. When no engagements were made pursuant to the recommendations of the Village Level Committee, the appellant challenged the issuance of second advertisement notice dated 19th July, 2003 by way of SWP No.84/2003. It is noteworthy that Kiran Kumar had also filed SWP No.2940/2002 seeking a similar direction. These writ petitions (SWP Nos.2940/2002 & 84/2003) filed by Kiran Kumar and the appellant-Meena Sharma, were disposed of by an order dated 9th September, 2003 by learned Single Judge noting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make appointment of teaching guides under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme after verification of habitation of the petitioner and other recommendees on the basis of their inter-se merit pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2001. Mr. Johal, submits that court cannot issue direction to make appointment on the basis of panel of recommended candidates. It is stated that court can only give direction for consideration. Argument advanced by Mr. Johal cannot be accepted in view of the specific averments made in the objections that the panel is available and only dispute of habitation of the recommended candidates is to be sorted out. I deem it proper to issue direction to the respondents to make appointments on the basis of panel of recommended candidates subject to verification of habitation. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months.” 8. The Court was thus conscious of the requirements of the RET Scheme, more specifically of residence, and therefore, mandated and directed the respondents to make appointments “subject to verification of habitation”. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months.” 8. The Court was thus conscious of the requirements of the RET Scheme, more specifically of residence, and therefore, mandated and directed the respondents to make appointments “subject to verification of habitation”. It appears that no verification, in terms of the directions made by this court, has ever been effected by the respondents. 9. Complaining non-action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner appears to have filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition (SW) No.9-B/2004 entitled “Meena Sharma v. Dr. S. S. Billoria & Ors.”, for violation of the order dated 9th September, 2003 by the respondents. It appears that pressurized by filing of contempt proceedings, the Director School Education issued order dated 3rd December, 2007 approving appointment of Meena Sharma-appellant as also Kiran Kumar as Rehbar-e-TaleemTeaching Guides in Government Middle School Girls, Bakore, and Government Middle School, Bakore respectively, against two clear vacancies created by the resignations on 29th September, 2007 of Sanjeev Kumar and Anjana Kumari. 10. The Contempt petition was disposed of by an order dated 22nd November, 2007, the operative portion of which reads as under: - “The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of vide order dt. 9th of Sept., 2003 with the following directions: “……I deem it proper to issue direction to the respondents to make appointments on the basis of panel of recommended candidates subject to verification of habitation. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months…..” Learned counsel for the petitioners have themselves placed a copy of the compliance made by the respondents of the aforesaid order. In view of the above, no further action is called for in the present contempt petition. The rule issued is discharged. Petitioners, in case, have any other grievance or a fresh cause of action, they are at liberty to challenge the same.” 11. The appointment letter dated 3rd December, 2007 was issued admittedly without the verification before issuance of the appointment order in favour of the appellant, of the habitation of the appellant in terms of order dated 9th September, 2003 having been undertaken by the respondents as directed by the learned Single Judge. It was therefore, not in compliance of the order of the writ court. 12. It was therefore, not in compliance of the order of the writ court. 12. The letter of appointment dated 3rd of December, 2007, issued by the respondents, however, clearly required that the appellant shall be allowed to join subject to production of the documents detailed therein which documents included the permanent resident certificate. 13. The appellant and Kiran Kumar were not still satisfied with their appointment. They now complained that their appointments as Rehbar-e-Taleem were wrongly delayed by four years and three months from the date of judgment i.e. 9th September, 2003, passed in SWP No.84/2003. Therefore, in order to seek retrospective effect of their appointment from 9th September, 2003, filed a second writ petition being SWP No.93/2009 entitled Kiran Kumar and anr. v. State of J&K & Ors. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 1st July, 2013 whereby the School Education Department was directed to accord consideration to the engagement of the appellants as ReTs in Middle School Bakore and Girls Middle School Bakore, respectively, with effect from 9th September, 2003 and passed orders. 14. On completion of a tenure of five years service on 2nd December, 2012, we are informed that the appellant has drawn further benefit of her appointment. It appears that she has come to be regularized as General Line Teacher by the respondents. 15. In the year 2009, the private respondent no.5-Sushma Kumari filed SWP No. 577/2009 entitled Sushma Kumari v. State of J&K and others, seeking a direction to the official respondents not to appoint Sunita Rajput and Samita Rani, residents of Chak Kora, Tehsil Akhnoor under the RET Scheme to the School in Bakore. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent no.5-Sushma Kumari filed a second writ petition as well being SWP No.9/2011 challenging the appointment of the appellant-Meena Sharma (Kumari), resident of village Chak Kora Tehsil Akhnoor under the RET Scheme, on the ground of her not being a resident of the village Bakore where the School was located but of the adjoining village. These writ petitions were staunchly contested by the appellant. 16. These writ petitions were staunchly contested by the appellant. 16. A third writ petition being SWP No.25/2009 also came to be filed by one Samita Rani, who had been empaneled at sr.no.10 in the panel prepared for selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government Middle School Bakore, complaining that despite her selection, she was not being appointed and sought a direction to the respondents to consider her for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Middle School, Bakore. 17. Given the fact that these three writ petitions arose out of identical facts circumstances, were concerned with appointments to the same school and similar questions of law were involved, they were taken up together for consideration and disposal on 15th December, 2014. 18. In the judgment which stands passed, the learned Singe Judge has considered the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme floated by the respondents for making appointments/ engagements under the Scheme and Guidelines framed thereunder and concluded that the Scheme required that only those persons who belong to the village in which the school is situated are entitled to the consideration. The learned Single Judge has further observed that “it is not a case where the official respondents have done an illegal act unmindful of the ground reality, but it has been done quite consciously as the panel framed reflects a note also showing the residential status of the candidates chosen from a village other than the one where the concerned school is located”, thereby concluding that an illegality stood conducted consciously, in appointing the appellant, a resident of the neighbouring village. Further it was held that this action was a highhanded act and that it was not open for the respondents to widen the scope of selection in derogation of the applicable rules. As a result, by the judgment dated 15th December, 2014, the learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of appellant herein and directed the respondents to consider the case of Sushma Kumari, the present respondent no.5, for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem in Government Middle School, Bakore, thereby accepting the prayer made in SWP Nos. 577/2009 and 9/2011. 19. It is to be noted that by the same order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition SWP No.25/2009 filed by Samita Rani holding that same did not carve out any ground much less a sufficient ground to allow the same. This dismissal has not been challenged further and has attained finality. 20. 577/2009 and 9/2011. 19. It is to be noted that by the same order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition SWP No.25/2009 filed by Samita Rani holding that same did not carve out any ground much less a sufficient ground to allow the same. This dismissal has not been challenged further and has attained finality. 20. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 15th December, 2014 primarily pressing the ground of delay and laches in invoking the writ jurisdiction by the private respondent No. 5, submitting that the writ petition nos. 577/2009 and 9/2011 deserved to be rejected. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length who have taken us through the record of the case and considered the challenge. Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme-intendment and eligibility requirements of habitation and residence: 22. It would be useful to firstly examine the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme, its spirit, intendment and purpose. 23. Our attention has been drawn to the Government order by which Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme was floated. The object of the scheme was to ensure people’s participation in the management of education at the grassroot. The same came to be floated by a Government order No. 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28th April, 2000. The relevant extract of this Scheme, which sheds valuable light on the consideration by this Court, deserves to be extracted in extenso and reads as follows: - “Sanction is accorded to launching of the Scheme of “Rehbar-e-Taleem” with the objective of:- a/ Promoting the decentralized management of elementary education with the community participation and involvement. b/ To ensure accountability and responsiveness through a strong backup and supervision through the community. c/ To operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass roots level. The scheme shall be effectuated for provision of services of Teaching guides called “Rehbar-e-Taleem” in the Primary and Middle Schools to make up the deficiency of the staff as per the existent norms. Concept of Rehbar-e-Taleem The person to be provided to make up the deficiency of the staff at the elementary level of education will be designated as Rehbar-e-Taleem. The underlying objective is to posit the role of the teaching guide as catalyst for quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of the children. Concept of Rehbar-e-Taleem The person to be provided to make up the deficiency of the staff at the elementary level of education will be designated as Rehbar-e-Taleem. The underlying objective is to posit the role of the teaching guide as catalyst for quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of the children. Drawn from the local community, the accountability of the teacher called as “Rehbar-e-Taleem” would be immediate providing for constant interface and interaction with the community to secure universal enrolment and to check the incidence of drop outs. Role of Village Level Committee ‘Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teaching Guide) shall be engaged by VLC conceptualized vide Circular order No.Edu/Plan-184/2000 dated 17.02.2000. However, for the purpose of selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem, the composition of VLC as visualized in the aforesaid Circular shall be modified to the extent of associating ZEO in place of Headmaster as the Convenor. xxxxxxxx i/ VLC shall assess the requirement of teachers in the Primary/ Middle Schools within the area of their operation in due regard to the approved norms of staffing and the Roll. On the basis of the said assessment, VLC would draw up a panel of eligible qualified persons from the village. ………………. Eligibility i/ Rehbar-e-Taleem should be the 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 VLC that no local candidate from within the village is available, VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village.” (Emphasis by us) 24. A subsequent Government order No.563-Edu. Of 2005 dated 24.08.2005 clarifies the expression “Village” as follows: “It is hereby clarified/ re-affirmed that the expression “Village” used in the instructions/ orders aforesaid shall mean, and shall always be deemed to have meant, a Revenue Village.” 25. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has also placed before us Government order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28th July, 2006, wherein it is reiterated that the candidate to be considered for appointment as ReT “should be actually residing at the time of his/ her appointment in the village in which the deficiency has been assessed”. There is therefore no manner of doubt that as per the RET Scheme the RET has to be a person who is a resident of the village where the school with staff deficiencies is situated. 26. There is therefore no manner of doubt that as per the RET Scheme the RET has to be a person who is a resident of the village where the school with staff deficiencies is situated. 26. On record of the present case is a communication from the Zonal Education Officer, Jourian (Akhnoor) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu which discloses the reverified panel of some schools of Jourian zone. This reverification was carried out pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 25th November, 2000 after physical verification and recommendation of the Village Level Committee. At serial no.11, the Zonal Education Officer has given a report for appointment of RETs in the Government Middle School Bakore, the school in question. In this report, the Zonal Education Officer, has unequivocally stated that “qualified candidates are available in the village. Recommended by the Village Level Committee and physically verified from the Village.” (Bakore). Thus, it was confirmed that eligible candidates from village Bakore were available for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 23rd November, 2001. There was thus no need to look to or appoint persons from surrounding villages. 27. The working of RET scheme had arisen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA(SW) No.130/2008 “Suresh Kumari v. State and others” which came to be decided by decision dated 11th October, 2008. Mr. P.S.Parmar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 has placed reliance on some of the important observations of the Division Bench. This case was concerned with staff being required for and RET appointments in the Government Primary School, Kartyal Simbal. It was contended that the school was located on the boundary of two villages. The court held that this was immaterial observing as follows: - “On the facts of the present case, we find that the issues of “adjoining village” or “revenue village” do not arise in the present case at all. The adjoining village would be relevant only when a candidate from a particular village is not available as it is in that case only that under clause ii (supra) the VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village. In the first instance, consideration should remain confined to the village where there is assessed deficiency of the staff. It is only when no eligible candidate is available from the village, the Committee may consider cases of the candidates from adjoining villages. In the first instance, consideration should remain confined to the village where there is assessed deficiency of the staff. It is only when no eligible candidate is available from the village, the Committee may consider cases of the candidates from adjoining villages. In the present case, the staff was required for Government Primary School Kartyal Simbal so the Village Level Committee was required to search for the suitable & eligible candidate from the said village only. The panel drawn up by the VLC, a copy of which has been placed on file would show, that not only the private respondent but two more candidates were available from the said village. So the VLC or the appointing authority could not have considered the candidates from adjoining village. The fact that the concerned school was located on the boundary of the two villages i.e. Village Kartyal Simbal & Village Khara will not matter in the present case and it will not vest in the appellant a right of consideration. Since the school was in village Kartyal Simbal, candidates from village only had the right of consideration and the appellant being from another village has got no such right. In such a situation the higher qualification of the appellant would not have any effect on the merit of the candidates belonging to village Kartyal Simbal.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. The RET Scheme clearly declares that for grassroot level monitoring of education with the teaching guides under RET scheme are residents of the village in which institution is located. This requirement stands reiterated as an essentiality by this Court in Suresh Kumari. 29. In the present case, clearly only persons who were “eligible qualified persons from the village” that is to say, actually residents of the village in which the school was located, could be appointed. The same is essential to give effect to the spirit, intendment and purpose of the scheme which was to ensure grass root monitoring of the education which is imparted. This would be possible only if the RET Teaching Guide is residing in the same village in terms of “constant interface and interaction with the community”. The Government Order dated 28th April, 2000 could also be implemented only if the teaching guide is from the same village. Appointment of the appellant, regularization as general line teacher-whether legal ? 30. Before us, Mr. The Government Order dated 28th April, 2000 could also be implemented only if the teaching guide is from the same village. Appointment of the appellant, regularization as general line teacher-whether legal ? 30. Before us, Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that village Chak Kora was adjacent to village Bakora, therefore, the eligibility of the appellant cannot be faulted. 31. As noted above, by the order dated 9th September, 2003, the respondents were mandated to consider the appellant for appointment “after verification of the habitation”. This has never been effected. It is apparent that it was pressurized by the contempt petition filed by the appellant that the respondents issued appointment letter dated 3rd of December, 2007. 32. Even by virtue of the appointment letter, the appellant was required to submit the permanent resident certificate. She does not appear to have done the same at all. If done, the same has not been examined, either in the context of the RET Scheme and Government orders or in terms of the order dated 9th September, 2003. 33. In this regard the respondent no.5 has placed before us the following documents: (i) the Certificate dated 17th March, 2009 issued by the Naib Tehsildar Jourian, which certifies that village Bakore and Chak Koura are two separate revenue villages. It is further clearly mentioned that village Bakore is not a mohara of village Chak Koura and vice versa. Clearly the appointment of the appellant fell foul of the stipulation in the advertisement inviting applications. (ii) The permanent resident certificate issued to the appellant certifies that she is a resident of village Chak Koura Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. These documents clearly disentitle the appellant from even consideration for, let alone appointment to the school in Bakore. Had the respondents complied with the writ court order dated 9th September, 2003 or later scrutinized the documents in terms of the appointment letter, the appellant would not have been appointed. Even in array of parties of all the proceedings, the appellant is shown to be resident of Village Chak Koura. 34. The appellant is conscious and aware of the requirement of the RET scheme. The attempt by the appellant to prevent the truth from being revealed is apparent from the manner in which she had filed her objections to respondent No. 5’s writ petition. 34. The appellant is conscious and aware of the requirement of the RET scheme. The attempt by the appellant to prevent the truth from being revealed is apparent from the manner in which she had filed her objections to respondent No. 5’s writ petition. The respondent no.5, in para-14 of the writ petition no.9/2011, the respondent No. 5 has clearly stated that the appellant has wrongly disclosed her wrong address. This specific averment was not even replied by the appellant. In the present appeal, the appellant has described herself to be the resident of Akhnoor. 35. The appellant a resident of village Chak Koura was clearly not eligible under the RET scheme for employment to the Government Middle School Bakore. If the respondents had complied with the order dated 9th September, 2003 passed in the appellants writ petition (SWP) no.84/2003 or comported to the requirements of the RET Scheme and verified her habitation, she could not have been given the said appointment/ engagement. 36. In the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2014, the learned Single Judge has held that the very appointment of the appellant was in derogation of the applicable law, the rules and the RET Scheme and that there was no occasion for the respondents to have prepared a joint panel of the candidates who belong to village Chak Koura for appointment in schools in village Bakore. This action of the respondents has been held to be clearly violative of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Scheme of appointment and legally impermissible. 37. The appellant’s challenge on the ground that her services stood regularized as a General Line Teacher is also of no consequence. This issue, we find, is not arising for the first time. In the decision in Suresh Kumari also a similar issue had arisen and was considered in the following terms: - “xxxxx The panel prepared by the VLC shows the name of the private respondent at S.No.1. The Deputy Commissioner does not give the reasons how he approved the name of the candidate from a different village when a candidate from the concerned village was available. As noticed above since the appellant belonged to a different though an adjoining village, she had no right of consideration and her name in the list of Deputy Commissioner would not give her any right at all. As noticed above since the appellant belonged to a different though an adjoining village, she had no right of consideration and her name in the list of Deputy Commissioner would not give her any right at all. There was no need to challenge the minutes of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.03.2001 as the minutes have culminated into the engagement order which is very much under challenge in the petition. We find no force in the submissions of Mr. Johal that since the services of the appellant has been regularized as a general line teacher, she could not be ousted from the post particularly when there is no challenge to it in the writ petition. It is well settled law now that an appointment which came to be made dehors the rules is illegal and an appointee cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment. Benefits got on the basis of such appointment would not vest in the appointee any right to continue on the post or on a higher post. Reference in this behalf may be made to Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur, AIR 2001 SC 201 . National Fertilizers Limited v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SCW 2972 , State of U.P v. Neeraj Awasthi, AIR 2006 SCW 123 and Secretary, State of Karnataka &Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1991 . The contention of Mr. Johal in this behalf is without any merit also for the reason that the regularization was dependent upon and consequent upon the selection, and if the selection goes, the regularization has also to go particularly when the regularization was made during the pendency of this petition and the outcome of this petition would have direct bearing on such regularization. In such a situation, the absence of specific challenge to the regularization of the appellant cannot have any bearing on the writ petition.” (Emphasis by us) 38. The illegality in the appointment of the appellant was not on account of any formal violation but went to the very root of the selection process inasmuch as the appellant, a person who was not at all even eligible for consideration, was granted the appointment. For all these reasons the judgment dated 15th December, 2014 cannot be faulted. 39. In the above background, her appointment being illegal and contrary to the very Scheme and Government orders, same cannot be sustained. For all these reasons the judgment dated 15th December, 2014 cannot be faulted. 39. In the above background, her appointment being illegal and contrary to the very Scheme and Government orders, same cannot be sustained. The appellant cannot be permitted to remain employed with the respondents. Whether the challenge by respondent No. 5 barred by delay and latches. 40. Lastly, it has been vehemently urged by the appellant that pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 23rd November, 2001, the respondents had appointed Sanjeev Kumar and Anjana Kumari as Rehbar-e-Taleem and that both of them belong to village Chak Kora. These two candidates, as noted above, had resigned on 29.09.2007. It is contended that the respondent no.5 was aware of their appointment but had laid no challenge to the same. The submission is that as such the writ petitions of the respondent No. 5 were barred by delay and laches. 41. The further submission is that respondent no.5 had first filed SWP No.577/2009 entitled Sushma Kumari v. State of J&K and others, seeking a direction to the official respondents not to appoint Sunita Rajput and Samita Rani, residents of Chak Kora, Tehsil Akhnoor. The contention is that in para 12 of this writ petition that the respondent no.5 had stated that Kiran Kumar already stands appointed as Rehbar-e-Taleem teaching guide. Mr. D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that Kiran Kumar and the appellant were appointed against two clear vacancies created by resignation of Sanjeev Kumar and Anjana Kumari by the same order. It is contended that the appellant was, therefore, aware of the appointment of appellant as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teaching Guide when she filed SWP No.577/2009 yet did not challenge the same and for this reason as well the challenge laid to the appointment of appellant by way of SWP No.9/2011 was barred on the ground of delay and laches. Mr. Chauhan calls upon us to set aside the order dated 15th December, 2014 on this ground. On the other hand, Mr. P.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 would submit that she has acted diligently and completely explained the filing of the writ petitions. The objections of the appellant is staunchly contested by him. 42. Mr. Chauhan calls upon us to set aside the order dated 15th December, 2014 on this ground. On the other hand, Mr. P.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 would submit that she has acted diligently and completely explained the filing of the writ petitions. The objections of the appellant is staunchly contested by him. 42. In order to adjudicate on this objection, let us examine the pleadings of the respondent no.5 in SWP no.9/2011 in respect of the grounds of challenge, her explanation of the period and circumstances in which she gained knowledge regarding the residence and appointment of the appellant; the objections of the Government and the response of the appellant Meena Sharma to the writ petition. We extract here the relevant portion of the pleadings: Writ Petition (SWP) No.9/2011 Objections filed by the Government Objections of the appellant “6. That the respondent no.5 Meena Sharma is resident of another revenue village ChakKora as such she cannot be appointed under ReT scheme and then petitioner tried to enquire from the office of respondents about the orders of appoint, but the respondents never gave any order or information about the appointment of respondent no.5. 11. That the respondent no.5 is resident of village Chak Kora and is not the resident of village Bakore. Copy of the permanent residence certificate (PRC) issued in favour of respondent no.5 showing her residence is attached herewith and marked as annexure A5. 12. That the respondent no.2-4 have appointed respondent no.5 in violation of Govt. order No.396/2000, whereby the scheme of ReT was formulated and also violating the subsequent Govt. order no.563/2005, Govt. order No.394/ 2006 and Govt. order No.288/ 2009. Copies of all the orders are attached herewith and marked as annexure A6 collectively. 14. That the respondent no.5 has given the wrong address in the writ petition(s) no.84/2003 and sought the direction from the Hon’ble Court by concealing the facts that she belongs to another village Chak Kora. 16. That at the time of preparation of panel for Government Middle School Bakore petitioner stands at s.no.2 of inter se merit in village Bakore and the respondent no.5 was at S.No.11 and the remarks of ZEO, Jourian were very clear that candidate from s.no.10-13 are the resident of village Chak Kora. Copy of the panel is already attached as annexure A3. Copy of the panel is already attached as annexure A3. “a) That the answering respondents submit that two clear vacancies of teachers in Middle School Bakore were advertised to be filled under RET Scheme. The applications were invited from the eligible candidates of the village where the said vacancies existed. The petitioner along with other candidates applied and a merit panel was prepared in which the petitioner stood at serial no.2 among the candidates of village Bakore. The candidates figuring at S. No.10 to 13 were the residents of a adjoining village Chak Kora which was submitted to the selection committee but the same was not executed. The answering respondents thereafter invited fresh application to fulfill the vacancies, two each in Middle School Bakore and Girls Middle School Bakora and application were received. That a panel of candidates from both the village was prepared as instructed by the Higher authorities i.e. the Chief Planning Officer, Jammu vide letter No. DDCJ/VI/Jammu dated 07.07.2000. The answering respondent submit that a meeting was held on 15.12.2002 in which the Village Committee and prominent citizens of both the revenue villages i.e. Bakore and hack Kora participated and it was revealed that the candidates from village Chack Kora be also given a chance as no school existed in the said village. Accordingly, a combined panel was prepared in which the petitioner stood at Serial No.13 and the respondent No. 5 and 6 stood at serial No.8 and 9 respectively………… c) That the answering respondents submit that in the meanwhile on directions issued by the Hon’ble Court in clubbed writ petitions No. SWP 2490/03 and 84/2003 two candidates Meena Sharma and Kiran Kumar were engaged as RET Teacher against the clear vacancies created by the resignation of the candidates figuring at S.No. 2 and in the merit panel selected prior to issuance of Government order dated 24.11.2003 and in pursuance to the aforesaid merit panel in which the candidates 2 and 3 were selected vide order No. DDCJ/CPO/ ZEO/Jourian/2003 dated 07.08.2003. The answering respondent submit that in the meanwhile on the directions issued by the Hon’ble Court the Government issued Government order No.563-Edu. Of 2005 dated 24.08.2005 and Government order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 where the expressions village local was defined as being a candidate actually residing in the said village. The answering respondent submit that in the meanwhile on the directions issued by the Hon’ble Court the Government issued Government order No.563-Edu. Of 2005 dated 24.08.2005 and Government order No. 394-Edu of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 where the expressions village local was defined as being a candidate actually residing in the said village. It is accordingly submitted that since one post was till vacant due to the operation of the aforesaid merit panel and accordingly fresh application were invited vide advertisement No. DESJ/RET/100-006 dated 22.02.2006 for the vacant post in revenue village Bakora to which only those candidates applied who were actually residing in the said village. The petitioner alongwith other candidates applied and a fresh merit panel was prepared in which the petitioner figured at serial No.2 and the candidates at serial No.1 was accordingly selected and engaged as RET teacher in Government Middle School Bakora. It is accordingly submitted that there is no vacancy available in the said revenue village due to the aforesaid submissions. The merit panel on both occasion stood exhausted and the petitioner participated in all the selection process but did not figure higher in the merit. d) That the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner is seeking to enforce the merit panel after the period of eight years, whereas the petitioner participated in the subsequently selection process. The writ petition besides being time barred is also hit by the subsequent conduct of the petitioner wherein the petitioner consented and participated in the subsequent selection process which was never challenged before the Hon’ble Court. Hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. “1 to 22 That the contents of Paras 1 to 22 of the Writ petition (Service) No.09/2011 are a matter of record, as such, need no specific reply. However, it is submitted that a detailed reply has already been submitted in the Preliminary Objections, which may kindly be treated as Reply to these Paras also, in order to avoid repetition in the matter. It is further submitted that the contents of those Paras, which are contrary and beyond the official record, are vehemently denied. 22. That the petitioner came to know about the illegality committed by respondent when they filed their objections in SWP No. 577/2009 on 18.8.2010 and obtained the appointment order issued by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. It is further submitted that the contents of those Paras, which are contrary and beyond the official record, are vehemently denied. 22. That the petitioner came to know about the illegality committed by respondent when they filed their objections in SWP No. 577/2009 on 18.8.2010 and obtained the appointment order issued by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. 5 and then got the copy of order passed by Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 84/2003 and is immediately filing the present writ petition without any further delay. That the contents of Para 1 to 22 of the writ petition are matter of record and hence need no reply. However it is submitted that the detailed reply has been submitted in the Preliminary objections which may kindly be treated as reply to these paras to avoid repetition and to save the precious time of this Hon’ble court. It is further submitted that the contents of those paras which are contrary and beyond the official record are vehemently denined. That the contents of Paras No. 1 to 22 of the writ petition (Service) No. 09/2011 are a matter of record, as such, need no specific reply. However, it is submitted that a detailed reply has already been submitted in the Preliminary objections, which may kindly be treated as Reply to these Paras also, in order to avoid repetition in the matter. It is further submitted that the contents of those Paras, which are contrary and beyond the official record, are vehemently denied”. (Emphasis supplied) 43. The above extract would show, most significantly, the appellant does not dispute the categorical assertion in para 22 of the writ petition of fact by the respondent no.5 that knowledge of the specific facts regarding the engagement of the appellant are concerned, came to the appellant only on 18th August, 2010. 44. The above undisputed extract of the pleadings shows that Sushma Kumari has further explained that the official respondents filed a counter affidavit only in 2010 mentioning the appointment of the appellant. There is no material on record which could suggest to us that Sushma Kumari had a copy of Meena Kumari’s (the appellant) appointment letter or about its knowledge. 45. The above undisputed extract of the pleadings shows that Sushma Kumari has further explained that the official respondents filed a counter affidavit only in 2010 mentioning the appointment of the appellant. There is no material on record which could suggest to us that Sushma Kumari had a copy of Meena Kumari’s (the appellant) appointment letter or about its knowledge. 45. Given this explanation, the writ petition challenging the appointment of the appellant having been filed in the year 2011, it cannot be held that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, let alone on account of unexplained delay and laches which could defeat a remedy. 46. Even otherwise, it needs no elaboration that there is no absolute proposition that delay and laches would defeat the remedy of writ jurisdiction in every case. Such objections have to be objectively assessed in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is only unexplained delay and laches in approaching the court which could defeat the remedy. In the above background, the learned Single Judge has held that no delay and laches could be attributed to the respondent no.5 in the present case. We find no reason at all to dis-agree with this finding. Result 47. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th December, 2014 is upheld. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.