Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.—The present letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in SWP No.2082/2013 titled Javeed Ahmad Batoo v. State of J&K and others, whereby the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner was directed to measure the distance between Hassain Abad to Abdul Abad (periphery to periphery) as also distance between Hassain Abad and other nearby habitations in terms of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009. 02. In order to set the controversy raised in the present appeal at rest, we first deem it proper to consider the writ petition (SWP No.2082/2013) filed by respondent no.1 herein (Javeed Ahmad Batoo). The appellant—Shabir Hussain Bahar is figuring as respondent no.6 in the writ petition. SWP No.2082/2013: 03. This case has a chequered history. The engagement of a Rehbar-e-Taleem/ Teaching Guide (ReT) in Mathematics stream in upgraded Primary School, Hussain Abad, falling in revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora, has been in contention since the year 2011. Two competing candidates, the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo and respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, have staked their claim over each other. The inept handling of the issue at various levels in the Education Department has confounded the dispute unnecessarily. 04. A small issue hinging upon the determination of question that as to whether the engagement in Upgraded Primary School, Hussain Abad, was to be made on the basis of revenue village or habitation, as contemplated and envisaged by Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, has remained unsolved during all these years despite the fact that three different committees constituted under the orders of this Court have undertaken the exercise. This is how a simple issue has become a conundrum. This appears to be on account of mis-reading and mis-interpretation of the objectives of Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. 05. Before we proceed to resolve this simple yet contentious issue, it would be appropriate to give, though briefly, the sequence of events leading to the filing of this writ petition. 06. The Chief Education Officer, Bandipora—respondent no.3, vide his No. Plg/SSA/Upgd/Opng/Bpr/11 dated 27.01.2011, accorded sanction to the up gradation of the Primary School, Hussain Abad (Gunchipora) and simultaneously, with a view to make the upgraded school functional, two posts of teachers to be engaged on ReT pattern under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme, were also sanctioned. 06. The Chief Education Officer, Bandipora—respondent no.3, vide his No. Plg/SSA/Upgd/Opng/Bpr/11 dated 27.01.2011, accorded sanction to the up gradation of the Primary School, Hussain Abad (Gunchipora) and simultaneously, with a view to make the upgraded school functional, two posts of teachers to be engaged on ReT pattern under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme, were also sanctioned. Pursuant to the instructions of respondent no.3, respondent no.4 invited applications for filling up these posts on the pattern of ReT and in accordance with the SSA Scheme. This was done by respondent no.4 vide his notification dated 03.07.2011. Apart from laying down other terms and conditions in the advertisement notice, it was also prescribed therein that one post each shall go the Science and Mathematics Streams and the candidates possessing 10+2 or above qualification in the aforesaid subjects, belonging to the concerned revenue village, shall be eligible to apply. 07. It appears that in response to the aforesaid notification, applications were received by respondent no.4 from the residents of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora. Accordingly, a merit list of candidates reflecting their qualification as well as the merit was prepared by respondent no.4 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Village Level Committee. The petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, having obtained 78.40% marks in the 10+2 examination, with Mathematics as one of the subject, was shown to be the most meritorious candidate in the Mathematics stream and he figured at sr.no.1 in the merit list, whereas, Syed Babar Ali, with marks percentage of 70%, was shown to be the most meritorious candidates in the Science stream and he figured at sr.no.2 in the merit list. On the basis of the aforesaid merit list, prepared by respondent no.4, respondent no.3 empaneled the petitioner and Syed Babar Ali for engagement as ReTs in Math and Science streams, respectively. 08. The respondent no.6 in the writ petition, namely, Shabir Hussain Bahar, objected to the tentative select list prepared by respondents 3 and 4, and before the tentative list could reach its logical end, he challenged it in SWP No.2079/2011. 08. The respondent no.6 in the writ petition, namely, Shabir Hussain Bahar, objected to the tentative select list prepared by respondents 3 and 4, and before the tentative list could reach its logical end, he challenged it in SWP No.2079/2011. In the said writ petition, the respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, being petitioner therein, did not dispute the eligibility or merit of the petitioner herein, namely, Javeed Ahmad Batoo but contended that respondents 3 and 4, Chief Education officer and Zonal Education Officer, respectively, had committed glaring irregularity and illegality in not following the mandate of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. It was claimed that Hussain Abad (Gunchipora), where the school was located, was a complete habitation meeting all the requirements as laid down in the Government order No.288-Edu of 2009, and, therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 could not have considered the petitioner—Javed Ahmad Batoo, who did not belong to the aforesaid habitation. It may be noted that in the aforesaid writ petition, apart from the petitioner—Javed Ahmad Batoo, Syed Babar Ali, who was figuring at sr.no.2 in the merit panel, for being engaged as ReT in the science stream, too was arrayed as a party respondent. The said writ petition of respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar being SWP No.2079/2011 was decided by the writ court vide its order dated 18th July, 2013. The writ court did not accept the challenge to the empanelment of Syed Babar Ali, in the merit panel under the Science stream on the ground that he was selected against the vacancy earmarked for candidates having science background and the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, namely, Shabir Hussain Bahar—respondent no.6 herein, was a candidate with Mathematics background and, therefore, had no locus. With regard to the inter-se dispute between the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo and the respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, the writ court disposed of the writ petition by providing as follows:— “8. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora shall constitute a committee of three senior officers, one from Education Department, another from Revenue Department and third from Engineering Department who shall ascertain on spot as to whether Hussainabad constitutes “Habitation’ on the touchstone of the explanation as quoted above. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora shall constitute a committee of three senior officers, one from Education Department, another from Revenue Department and third from Engineering Department who shall ascertain on spot as to whether Hussainabad constitutes “Habitation’ on the touchstone of the explanation as quoted above. In case committee concludes that Hussainabad is not a “Habitation’, in that eventuality selection of respondent no.6 shall be given effect and finalized and in case Hussainabad constitutes “Habitation’ in that eventuality petitioner shall be considered for selection to the exclusion of respondent No.6.” 09. The Committee of officers constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, in terms of order of the writ court dated 18th July, 2013 (supra), conducted the enquiry and submitted its report dated 29th August, 2013. The operative portion of the said report reads as under:— “The villagers including Surpanch, Lumberdar and Watchman of the area stated that they all know Shabir Hussain Bahar (Petitioner) and he belongs to Rakh Sultanpora and is residing in Hussain Abad. They also stated that the population of Abdual Abad is about 150 but the population of Hussain Abad is about 350-400. The distance between Hussain Abad and Abdul Abad is about 2.5 km. Hence in view of the above finding and on spot enquiry, it is evident that Hussain Abad fulfills the requirement to be a Habitation. Hence report is submitted for favour of your information and kind perusal please.” 10. The report of the Committee was objected to by none other than the respondent no.4—Zonal Education Officer, who, under the ReT scheme, is a competent authority to frame the panel. The respondent no.4 in his communication dated 16th September, 2013, annexure-F to the writ petition, specifically pointed out that apart from the habitations like Hussain Abad and Abdul Abad, there are few other habitations in the revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora. Bhat Mohalla, Sadiq Abad and Main Gunchipora were indicated to be the other habitations located within a distance of less than 1 KM from the habitation Hussain Abad. The respondent no.4, therefore, pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, that the report submitted by the Committee constituted by him is not as per the provisions of the Government order no.288-Edu of 2009. Petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, too submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, seeking review of the report. The respondent no.4, therefore, pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, that the report submitted by the Committee constituted by him is not as per the provisions of the Government order no.288-Edu of 2009. Petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, too submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, seeking review of the report. As it appears from the record, the Deputy Commissioner showed no inclination to reconsider the report and took a decision that the report submitted by the Committee constituted by him, as it is, shall form the basis of engagement in question. The petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, as is claimed, was left with no option but to challenge the report before the court of law and, accordingly, the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, filed the writ petition being SWP no.2082/2013 before the writ court. 11. The writ petition was considered by the learned Single Judge and after hearing the parties, vide its interim order dated 23rd July, 2014, the learned Single Judge directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, to ascertain as to whether the objection raised by the respondent no.4—Zonal Education Officer, had any substance and submit a comprehensive report in this regard. The operative portion of the order dated 23rd July, 2014 passed in SWP No.2082/2013, which is relevant in the context of controversy involved in the present matter is also reproduced here under:— “Keeping in view the afore-stated circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, shall get it ascertained as to whether objection raised by the respondent No.4-Zonal Education Officer, Sumbal Sonawari has any substance. On further enquiry a comprehensive report be submitted as to whether “Hussainabad’ satisfies two conditions so as to be called a Habitation in terms of Govt. order No. 288-Edu of 2009. The report shall be submitted within four weeks.” 12. In compliance, the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, conducted further enquiry through a duly constituted committee and submitted a report before the Single Bench with its finding that distance between Abdul Abad and Hussain Abad was approximately 2.5 Kms and the population of Hussain Abad was 420 souls. This, however, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge who vide its order dated 31st May, 2016, once again directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, to conduct the enquiry again in terms of the earlier order of the Court dated 23rd July, 2014, by measuring the distance between the two habitations i.e., from periphery to periphery. This, however, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge who vide its order dated 31st May, 2016, once again directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, to conduct the enquiry again in terms of the earlier order of the Court dated 23rd July, 2014, by measuring the distance between the two habitations i.e., from periphery to periphery. It was also clarified by the court that the distance to be measured between the two habitations must also include the distance of the habitation where school is situated to its nearest habitation i.e., Mir Mohalla, Sidiqabad and Bhat Mohalla. The operative part of the order dated 31st May, 2016 is significant and is, therefore, reproduced hereunder:— “4. The committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner shall go into this issue and do the following:— To measure the distance between Hassain Abad to Abdul Abad (periphery to periphery) as also distance between Hassain Abad and other nearby habitations in terms of Government order No. 288-Edu of 2009.” 13. This order of the learned Single Judge clarifying the scope of enquiry, to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, appears to have been taken by respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, as against his interests. He, therefore, assailed it in the connected Letter Patents Appeal bearing LPA No.127/2016. 14. This Court on the very first date i.e., on 04.07.2016, directed the listing of the appeal along with instant writ petition (SWP No.2082/2013) and also directed maintenance of status-quo. On 8th May, 2017, this Court taking note of the long history of the case and in order to settle the matter once for all, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, to return a finding as to whether Hussain Abad is a habitation within the meaning of the term, as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in its decision dated 19.08.2015 rendered in LPA No.148/2013 titled Mubeena Hassan v. State of J&K and others. It may be noted that the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter while explaining the import of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 had held that for the purposes of applicability of the Government order NO.288-Edu of 2009, the measurement points between the two human habitations of a Revenue Village would be the boundaries/ peripheries of the two habitations and not the centre points of the two habitations. 15. 15. In compliance to the directions passed by this Court on 8th May, 2017 in the connected Letters Patent Appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, has submitted the compliance report and has returned its findings on the issue in the following manner:— “Undersigned personally visited the spot on 12.09.2017 alongwith the team of officers. It was observed that Revenue Village Rakhi-Sultanpora consists of various Mohallas namely Abdulabad, Hussain Abad, Bhat Mohalla, Sadiq Abad, Tularzoo and Tabailbal. The distance from Hussain Abad to Abdulabad is 1.60 km, Hussain Abad to Bhat Mohalla 0.37 km while as the distance between Hussain abad to Sadiq abad is 0.30 km. It was found that Hussain abad itself does not fulfill the criteria laid down in Govt order no.288 of 2009 but is a part Gonchipora habitation consisting of Hussaindabad, Bhat Mohalla and Sadiq abad.” 16. It may be interesting to note that even this report of the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, is resented and objected to by respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar. Despite submission of the aforesaid report, the pivotal question continues to remain unsolved. As already observed, the total mis-reading of the Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 and lack of proper understanding of its import has led to this spate of litigation which has not only consumed considerable and valuable time of this Court but must have also put the parties to financial distress. That apart, the school which was supposed to get a Mathematics teacher in the year 2011 continues to function without it. 17. While the parties are still litigating with no end to the subject litigation, the Government has come up with Government order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, whereby the Government has closed the ReT scheme and engagement of ReTs in the schools. The Government order clearly provides that all advertisement notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared shall be deemed to have been cancelled/ withdrawn ab-initio except where the engagement orders have already been issued. We will consider the impact of this Government order on the instant writ petition, a little later. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it would be necessary to first reproduce Government order no.288-Edu of 2009 dated 8th April, 2009, hereunder:— “Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat Education Department Subject: Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme to ensure peoples participation in the Management of Education at grass root level. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it would be necessary to first reproduce Government order no.288-Edu of 2009 dated 8th April, 2009, hereunder:— “Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat Education Department Subject: Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme to ensure peoples participation in the Management of Education at grass root level. Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 Dated 8th April, 2009. The following explanation is added below Eligibility condition No.1 laid down in Government order No.396 of Education 2000 dated 28th April, 2000 (Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme):— Explanation:— “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 habitation and having a population of more than 300 persons, shall be entitled to seek engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem in the local school.” 19. As is apparent, the Government order of 2009 is not an independent and self-contained provision but only adds explanation below the eligibility condition no.1 laid down in Government order No. 396 of Edu 2000 dated 28th April, 2000 (ReT scheme). By virtue of the provisions of the Government order aforesaid, the Government has only explained the term ‘village’ which is envisaged as a unit/ zone for selection of an ReT. In the Government order no.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28th April, 2000, whereby the ReT scheme was launched in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the unit of selection envisaged was ‘village’. In other words, a candidate to be eligible to apply for the post of ReT in a school where there is assessed deficiency of staff ought to be a person belonging to the village. Logically speaking and in all reasonableness, the term ‘village’ as has been used in the scheme, should have been understood as ‘revenue village’ as defined in the Land Revenue Laws, more particularly, in the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1966. But the ambiguity of the term ‘village’ was exploited by the litigants. Even the courts were persuaded to take contradictory views. 20. Taking note of the aforesaid ambiguity and the cleavage of judicial opinion, the Government vide its order No.563-Edu of 2005 dated 24th August, 2005, came up with clarification and re-affirmed that the expression ‘village’ used in the ReT scheme would mean and shall always be deemed to have been meant ‘revenue village’. 20. Taking note of the aforesaid ambiguity and the cleavage of judicial opinion, the Government vide its order No.563-Edu of 2005 dated 24th August, 2005, came up with clarification and re-affirmed that the expression ‘village’ used in the ReT scheme would mean and shall always be deemed to have been meant ‘revenue village’. This perhaps would have solved the problem and avoided some uncalled-for litigation but the Government, in its own wisdom and guided by the considerations which are not discernable, yet again came up with another order i.e., Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009, whereby the scope of the term ‘village’ was further expanded by adding explanation to the original scheme promulgated in the year 2000. An addendum to the aforesaid Government order was also issued on 9th April, 2009 by the Government and it was provided that word “only’ shall be deemed to have been added after the ‘comma’ and before the word ‘shall’ appearing in line 6th of the aforesaid order. As a result, thereof, the unit of consideration which was earlier revenue village was further squeezed to habitation fulfilling four essential requirements which are:— (i) Habitation must be scattered in the revenue village; (ii) The habitation must be popularly known as village; (iii) The habitation should be at least 1 Km away from other habitation; (iv) The habitation should have a population of more than 300 souls. 21. The applicability of Government order no.288-Edu of 2009 was also not free from difficulties. No guidelines were provided by the Government to measure the distance between the two habitations nor were the authorities nominated to do the needful. Same was the position with regard to working out the population of the habitation in question. 22. This ambiguity in the Government order of 2009 coupled with absence of proper guidelines to work-out its applicability, led to further litigation in this Court and cleavage of judicial opinion on the subject. To resolve the issue and have an authoritative pronouncement, the matter came to be referred to the larger Bench in LPA No.148/2013. The reference was decided by Full Bench of this Court on 19th August, 2015. To resolve the issue and have an authoritative pronouncement, the matter came to be referred to the larger Bench in LPA No.148/2013. The reference was decided by Full Bench of this Court on 19th August, 2015. The operative portion of the judgment of the Full Bench (supra) for expediency is reproduced as under:— ““In view of the aforesaid discussion made in this order, we accordingly answer the reference as under:— “The measurement points between the two human habitations of a Revenue Village would be the boundaries/peripheries of the two habitations and not the centre points of the two habitations.”“ 23. We have devoted some time to survey the legal position pertaining to the true import and understanding of the Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 as the same, if understood in proper perspective, would resolve the conundrum posed in this writ petition. 24. In the backdrop of legal and factual position sketched hereinabove, we proceed to examine the issue involved in this writ petition. 25. The reports of the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, placed on record from time to time, the note whereof has been taken hereinabove, would indicate that same are contradictory to one another and do not resolve the issue. Although the reports prepared by the Deputy Commissioner and submitted to this Court in this writ petition as also in the connected LPA are ambiguous and prepared in total disregard of the provisions of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009, yet the material collected during the preparation of these reports, which is not disputed by the parties, could be used to settle the issue. 26. We have already reproduced the four pre-requisites of applicability of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009. The issue needs to be considered and viewed through the prism of these four pre-requisites. 27. Admittedly, the school in question is located in Hussain Abad which is one of the habitations of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora. It is also not in dispute that petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo is a resident of Abdul Abad while as the respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, is an inhabitant of Hussain Abad. 27. Admittedly, the school in question is located in Hussain Abad which is one of the habitations of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora. It is also not in dispute that petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo is a resident of Abdul Abad while as the respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar, is an inhabitant of Hussain Abad. The engagement, as is provided in the order of sanction, is to be made on the pattern of ReT which means that selection/ engagement of the ReT in the school in question has to be made in terms of Government order No. 396 of Education 2000 dated 28th April, 2000, as amended from time to time read with Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. It may also be noted that in the advertisement notice issued by respondent no.4 on 03.07.2011, applications have been invited from the residents of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora but that would not mean that applicability of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 is explicitly or impliedly excluded. This is so, because the Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 only supplies an explanation to the existing ReT scheme promulgated in the year 2000 and is an integral part thereof. Anyway, this question should not detain us for the reason that none of the parties have disputed this position. 28. From the material that has come on record in the shape of reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, the revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora is a village having scattered habitations. Apart from Hussain Abad and Abdul Abad, there are several other habitations known by their separate names. These are Mir Mohalla, Sadiq Abad, Bhat Mohalla etc. etc. It is also correct that the population of Hussain Abad (Gonchipora) is more than 300 souls. The distance between Hussain Abad and Abdul Abad—the place of habitation of respondent no.6—Shabir Hussain Bahar and the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo respectively is more than 1 Km. But it has also amply come on record that the other habitations like, Mir Mohalla, Bhat Mohalla and Sadiq Abad are the other adjoining habitations of Hussain Abad (Gonchipora) and are located within a distance of 1 Km. This position is amply clear from the latest report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, in compliance to the order dated 23rd August, 2007 passed in the connected LPA. 29. This position is amply clear from the latest report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, in compliance to the order dated 23rd August, 2007 passed in the connected LPA. 29. When the issue raised in this petition is viewed in the light of the legal position enumerated hereinabove and the admitted factual position that has come on record, it is abundantly clear that Hussain Abad (Gonchipora) does not fulfill the requirements of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 dated 8th April, 2009 and if that be the position, no fault could be found with the original panel which was prepared by respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora. The petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, being more meritorious, was thus correctly empaneled for engagement as ReT in the Mathematics stream in the upgraded Primary School, Hussain Abad. 30. As clearly held, hereinabove, and reiterated to avoid any ambiguity, the habitation/ hamlet Hussain Abad (Gonchipora) apparently fulfills the three parameters laid down in the Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 i.e., it is popularly known as village; it is one of the scattered habitation of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora and it is having a population of more than 300 souls but fails to fulfill the fourth and equally significant condition/ requirement that it is not separated from its nearest habitation by a distance of at least 1 Km. The habitations, Abdul Abad and Sadiq Abad are the two habitations which are within one kilometer distance from Hussain Abad (Gonchipora). It is totally fallacious to contend that the habitations falling within the radius of one kilometer could be taken together along with the habitation where the school is situated for the applicability of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no doubt in our mind that habitation Hussain Abad (Gonchipora) does not qualify to be a habitation for the purpose of applicability of Government order No.288-Edu of 2009 and for restricting the zone of consideration only to the habitants of said habitation. 32. This brings us to the question of effect of Government order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, whereby the Government has formally closed the ReT scheme. 33. 32. This brings us to the question of effect of Government order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, whereby the Government has formally closed the ReT scheme. 33. With a view to understand the intent and import of the Government order (supra), it would be necessary to reproduce the same hereunder:— “Government order No.919-Edu of 2018 Dated 16.11.2018 Sanction is hereby accorded that:— (i) Formal closure of the ReT scheme and the ReT recruitment/ engagement process notified vide Government order no.396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 alongwith subsequent modifications/ amendments. However, the existing ReTs already appointed under the scheme or on ReT pattern shall continue to be governed under the erstwhile scheme till their regularization or otherwise; (ii) All advertisement notices for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issued shall and shall always be deemed to have been cancelled/ withdrawn as ab-initio; (iii) No fresh advertisement for recruitment/ engagement under any ReT Scheme(s) shall henceforth be issued. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.” 34. The communication of the Department of School Education issued vide No. Edu/Legal/K/150/2018 dated 30.11.2018, which was passed on to us during the course of hearing also deserves to be noticed and it reads as under: - “Subject: Pending of ReT matters and Financial Implications thereof. Ref: (i) State Administrative Cuncil Decision NO.129/19/2018 dated 14.11.2018. (ii) Government Order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 Sir, Kindly find enclosed herewith a copy of Government Order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 regarding the subject cited above. In this connection I am directed to request to issue orders to all Chief Education Officers/ Zonal Education Officers to dispose of all ReT matters in light of above mentioned Government order. It is pertinent to mention that all the advertisement notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panel prepared has been deemed cancelled/ withdrawn ab-initio. Specific order in this regard must be issued by the concerned Chief Education Officers/ Zonal Education Officers citing the Government Order. It is further ensured that concerned officers should pass appropriate consideration orders in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court issue in various cases from time to time and also file statement of facts/ compliance report in view of the changed scenario in all such cases, pending before the writ court. A compliance report be sent urgently.” 35. It is further ensured that concerned officers should pass appropriate consideration orders in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court issue in various cases from time to time and also file statement of facts/ compliance report in view of the changed scenario in all such cases, pending before the writ court. A compliance report be sent urgently.” 35. From a bear reading of Government order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 read with communication of the Education Department dated 30.11.2018, it is clear that all advertisement notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared but no engagement orders issued, have been cancelled/ withdrawn ab-initio and the subordinate officers of the School Education Department have been asked to pass appropriate orders as may be necessary to comply with the orders passed by this Court in various cases from time to time. 36. From the perusal of the Government order (supra), it cannot be said that the matters which are subjudice in this Court for the last several years would also terminate rendering the proceedings therein infructuous. In the instant case, for example, one of the two persons, namely, Syed Babar Ali, empaneled for engagement has already been engaged in the Science stream in the school in question. Had the parties to the writ petition not been in litigation before this court, the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, who was empaneled along with said Syed Babar Ali, too would have been appointed/ engaged in the Mathematics stream. In that situation like Syed Babar Ali, the engagement of the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Batoo, too could have been effected. Without pronouncing upon the validity or otherwise of Government order No.919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, which is stated to be the subject matter of challenge in several writ petitions pending before this Court, we hold that the Government order aforesaid does not and shall not have any effect on the selection/ engagement in question. 37. For, what has been stated above, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to go ahead with the finalization of the panel originally prepared by respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of revenue village Rakhi Sultanpora and offer the engagement to the petitioner—Javeed Ahmad Bhat, if there is no other legal impediment, retrospectively with effect from the date Syed Babar Ali, was engaged. However, the retrospective effect shall be for notional purposes only without any monetary benefits on the principle of “no work no pay’. LPA No.127/2016: 38. In view of decision rendered hereinabove in the writ petition being SWP No.2082/2013 (supra), this LPA in which the interim order passed in the said writ petition has been assailed has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.