JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J. - The petitioner having failed before the learned Single Judge has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning the judgment dated 23.07.2019. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing thereof. 2. Mr. O. P. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submitted that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 23.07.2019, the counsel for the applicant/appellant tried to contact her on the mobile number given by her, however, with the snapping of mobile services in the then J&K State from 05.08.2019 onwards, he was not successful. When the services were restored in November 2019, the staff in the office of the counsel forget to inform the applicant/appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition. It is only when the appellant/applicant enquired about the status of her case on 27.01.2020 that she was informed about the dismissal of the writ petition. Immediately thereafter certified copy was applied and the present appeal was filed. Hence, the delay was not intentional. 3. As far as merits of the case are concerned, Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that advertisement Notice No. 1703-05 dated 12.01.2004 was issued inviting applications for various posts of ReT available in different schools. This included 3 posts in Government Middle School, Gangota and one post in Government Primary School, Akhrie. Both falling in revenue village Alni Gangota, Tehsil Bhalessa. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the aforesaid notification. Panel of 16 candidates was prepared. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 9. In the meantime, another notification was issued by Zonal Education Officer, Bhalessa on 09.07.2004 whereby three posts of ReT in Middle School Alni and two posts in New Primary School Bonecha in the revenue village Alni Gangota, were notified. The applicant/appellant responded to these advertisements as well. Panel of 18 candidates was prepared. The petitioner was again placed at serial No. 9. The applicant/appellant and six other candidates challenged both the panels by filing SWP No. 1827/2004, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 31.12.2012. The select list prepared by the respondents was quashed and the matter remitted to the Chief Education Officer to examine the claim of the parties. The needful was to be done within four months. In the fresh panel prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the order of merit. The select list prepared by the respondents was quashed and the matter remitted to the Chief Education Officer to examine the claim of the parties. The needful was to be done within four months. In the fresh panel prepared, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the order of merit. Consequently, she was appointed as ReT Teacher in Government High School Gangota vide order dated 26.09.2014 and joined her services in pursuance thereto. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SWP No. 23/2015 claiming that delay in appointment was not on account of any fault of the petitioner. Hence, she should be deemed to be appointed w.e.f. 01.12.2004 when the panel was prepared first time and be granted all consequential benefit including regularization as General Line Teacher. The learned Single Judge has wrongly denied the benefit which was due to the petitioner and in fact she deserves to be regularized after five years service of deemed appointment. In support of her plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar v. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, (2000) 8 SCC 182 and judgments of this Court in Sarfaraz Maqbool Bhat v. State and ors, 2015 (3) JKJ[HC] 227 and SWP No. 1419/2010 titled Amar Singh v. State of J&K and others decided on 04.10.2012. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. No doubt, in pursuance to the advertisement issued for appointment of ReT Teacher in different schools, select panel was prepared on 01.12.2004 but the same could not be given effect to as it was challenged by the applicant/appellant along with six other candidates by filing SWP No. 1827/2004. The writ petition was decided on 31.12.2012. In pursuance to the directions issued therein, fresh panel was prepared on 04.07.2014. The petitioner being in merit was appointed vide order dated 26.09.2014. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner joined her services as ReT on 13.10.2014. There is nothing on record to suggest that any issue was raised by the petitioner at the time of joining on the post. As the trend remains in the Government employment that firstly any candidate makes all efforts to seek appointment. Once appointment is given, thereafter a new litigation starts in many cases seeking undue benefits. There is nothing on record to suggest that any issue was raised by the petitioner at the time of joining on the post. As the trend remains in the Government employment that firstly any candidate makes all efforts to seek appointment. Once appointment is given, thereafter a new litigation starts in many cases seeking undue benefits. The case in hand is of that type. The petitioner though was appointed in September 2014 and joined as ReT Teacher in October 2014 but is praying that her deemed date of appointment as ReT be taken as 01.12.2004, when initial panel was prepared, which according to her was not correct. Any right to appointment will accrue to the applicant/appellant only after her name will find mention in the merit list. It was when the writ petition was decided and a fresh panel prepared on 04.07.2014. She joined her service thereafter. It is not the case of the applicant/appellant that any person out of that panel, which was subject matter of challenge, was appointed earlier and only the applicant/appellant was left out of that and as a result of the litigation, she lost in seniority and could not join services at the right time. Rather it was complete panel which was under challenge, which was set-aside and fresh panel had to be prepared. 7. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant are distinguishable as in those matters the direction was issued by the courts for grant of deemed benefits in the matters where the selection itself was in question and some of the candidates had been appointed either from that selection or in subsequent selection, ignoring the claim of a rightful candidate in the earlier selection. The facts in the case in hand are different. 8. The contention raised regarding grant of deemed date of appointment and consequential regularization is also far-fetched as benefit is being sought for a period of about a decade i.e. w.e.f. 01.12.2004 though the applicant/appellant actually joined service on 13.10.2014. As per the ReT scheme, any ReT Teacher has to actually work for a period of five years and paid the honorarium, besides report of good conduct is also one of the pre- requisite for regularization as General Line Teacher. As per the ReT scheme, any ReT Teacher has to actually work for a period of five years and paid the honorarium, besides report of good conduct is also one of the pre- requisite for regularization as General Line Teacher. In the case of the applicant/appellant, she having not worked for all this period and paid nothing, cannot in any way be said to be eligible to be regularized as General Line Teacher merely on deemed basis and even paid the salary without working. 9. For the reasons mentioned above and while concurring with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal as well as application seeking condonation of delay are dismissed.