JUDGMENT : 1. The petition is admitted for hearing. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks following reliefs: “(i) Writ of Certiorari quashing the selection panel (Annexure-E) in so far as it empanels respondent No.5 and engagement order of respondent No.5 bearing No.ZEO/U/11/1048-58 dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure-F). (ii) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to engage the petitioner as RET in UPS Daingpura Hill on the basis of his merits.” 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition briefly stated are that the Chief Education Officer, Ramban, issued an advertisement notice dated 04.12.2010 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, inter alia, for two posts for the Upper Primary School Daingpura, Revenue Village Sujmatna, falling in Education Zone Ukhral. Out of aforesaid two posts, one post was to be filled up in the stream of Mathematics and one in the stream of Science. The petitioner being fully eligible having passed his 10+2 examination in Non-Medical Stream with Mathematics as one of the subjects has applied for the aforesaid post along with the respondent No.5 who was from Arts stream with Mathematics one of the subjects. However, the respondent No.5 was selected against the aforesaid post. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner approached this Court. 5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement notice dated 04.12.2010 was issued in respect of posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in streams of Science and Mathematics and the respondent No.5 has passed the Higher Secondary School Examination in Arts Stream with having Mathematics as one of the subjects and she could not have been selected. It is further submitted that the communication dated 07.02.2009 sent by the Additional Secretary to Government, Education Department to the Director, School Education, Kashmir, provides that in respect of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers for Mathematics and Science streams the candidates of that stream alone have to be selected. It is further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the term background can be considered other than a particular stream and aforesaid communication has been ignored. It is further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the term background can be considered other than a particular stream and aforesaid communication has been ignored. It is further submitted that as per Clause (5) of the advertisement notice the selection had to be made strictly on the basis of merit at Revenue Village Level and respondent No.5 has been engaged ignoring the better merit of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Additional Advocate General submitted that the controversy involved in the instant case is securely covered by the decision dated 07.11.2017 of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Jagjeet Singh vs. State of J&K & Ors., LPASW No.90/2017. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the respondent No.5 is from the same revenue village and if the merit of petitioner and respondent No.5 is taken into account at the revenue village level, the respondent No.5 is more meritorious than the petitioner. It is further submitted that the merit list was prepared in terms of communication dated 21.01.2011 sent by the Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, Jammu to the Chief Education Officer, Ramban (Annexure-R5) by which the direction was issued to prepare the select list at Panchayat level and on the basis of aforesaid communication, merit panel was prepared. In support of his submission, learned Additional Advocate General has further relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Showkat Ahmad Dar vs. State of J&K & Ors, in LPA No.60/2015. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 has supported the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The controversy involved in this writ petition is securely covered by the decision dated 07.11.2017 of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Jagjeet Singh vs. State of J&K & Ors., LPASW No.90/2017. Paragraph 11 of the judgment is reproduced herein-below: “It will be evident from the above that mathematics is a subject which figures both in the Arts Stream and in the Science Stream. Paragraph 11 of the judgment is reproduced herein-below: “It will be evident from the above that mathematics is a subject which figures both in the Arts Stream and in the Science Stream. Therefore, if a person who had taken the Arts Stream, but had not initially taken mathematics as a subject in the Higher Secondary Examination Part-I, would not be barred from taking mathematics in the Higher Secondary Examination Part-II. This being the case, it cannot be said that the respondent No.6 did not legitimately clear the Higher Secondary Examination Part-II which included mathematics as a subject. Consequently, it cannot be said that the respondent No.6 did not have a mathematics background.” 8. Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that in the advertisement notice the minimum basic qualification has been prescribed as 10+2 with Math & Science as Compulsory Subjects. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent No.5 secured 84 marks in mathematics whereas the petitioner secured 81 marks in mathematics. Therefore, even assuming that the merit panel has been prepared at the revenue village level, the respondent No.5 was more meritorious than the petitioner. 9. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed accordingly along with connected MPs.