JUDGEMENT The short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that he responded to the Advertisement Notification Nos. 05/2013 and 06/2013 whereby posts of Teacher for District Cadre Poonch were notified by the Service Selection Board. 2. The petitioner, however, was shortlisted only for the interview for 231 posts notified vide Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013. The Service Selection Board concluded the selection process and finalised the select list. The petitioner, in view of her merit, was placed in the waiting list at S.No.4. Respondent No.6, who was considered in the selection process in reference to Advertisement Notification No. 05/2013 was placed in the waiting list. It is projected by the petitioner that after the select list was operated, as many as 18 candidates failed to join, as a result whereof, the Chief Education Officer Poonch made request to the Director School Education for permitting him to operate the waiting list. It is claimed that the petitioner being at S. No. 4 of the waiting list has been cleared by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for appointment as Teacher against a short fall vacancy with reference to Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013. It is further claimed that all other candidates except the petitioner have been appointed and the petitioner has been denied the appointment on the plea that this Court vide order dated 02.03.2015 passed in SWP No. 623/2015 has kept one post of Teacher reserved . The petitioner submits that respondent No.6, who has not applied pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013, has no right or interest in stalling one post that has fallen vacant due to non joining of a candidate selected pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in view of the judgment rendered in SWP No. 623/2015 today, this writ petition has virtually rendered dependent upon the outcome of consideration of Nitu Sudan, who is petitioner in SWP No. 623/2015 and has been found entitled to be considered in reference to Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013. In case, she makes the grade, she would be entitled to be appointed against the post reserved vide interim order dated 02.03.2015 (supra). In case, she makes the grade, she would be entitled to be appointed against the post reserved vide interim order dated 02.03.2015 (supra). However, in case, because of her merit, respondent No.6 does not make the grade and is not selected and appointed against the reserved post, the case of the petitioner herein, if she is next in the order of merit, shall be considered against the aforesaid post. It is made clear that in case the petitioner herein is ultimately found to be entitled to appointment, she shall be appointed retrospectively with effect from the date, the candidates selected pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06/2013 were so appointed. The retrospective appointment, however, shall be notional in nature and would qualify for pecuniary and other benefits prospectively with effect from the date of issuance of appointment order. 4. Since the consideration of the case of the petitioner herein depends upon the result of consideration of the case of Nitu Sudan, respondent No.6 herein, as such, the exercise for consideration of the case of petitioner herein shall be undertaken after according consideration to the case of Nitu Sudan, respondent No.6 herein and completed within one month thereafter.