JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Second Appeal is preferred against judgement/order dated 27th March 2018, passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “First Appellate Court”) on a Civil First Appeal, bearing File no.02/Appeal, titled as Shahzada Iqbal v. State of J&K and others, as also against the judgement and decree dated 6th February 2015, passed by Sub Judge, Anantnag (for short “Trial Court”) on a civil suit titled as Anjum Showkat v. State of J&K and others, and for setting aside the same. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 3. A civil suit titled as Anjum Showkat v. Commissioner and others, was filed by respondent no.5 herein before the Trial Court, in which present appellant was not a party defendant, which was decreed vide judgement/order dated 6th February 2015. As an aggrieved person, present appellant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The appeal did not succeed. So, the instant Civil Second Appeal is against concurrent findings. 4. According to counsel for appellant, following are the substantial questions of law for deciding the appeal in hand: (1) The impugned order is suffering from perversity; (2) The impugned order is suffering non-application of mind; (3) The Ld. District Judge Anantnag has not returned any finding on facts in issue or on the legal issues involved in the case; (4) The impugned order is cryptic, mechanical in nature and prejudicial to the rights and interests of the appellant; (5) The Lower Appellate Court has upheld a collusive/admission decree which has been obtained by fraud; (6) The collusive/admission decree passed without hearing the affected party/necessary party being not executable deserved to be set aside but the impugned order dismissed the appeal; (7) The court below has neither satisfied itself about the correctness, genuineness and the fairness of decree in respect of facts, procedure and law, nor the court below has discussed the legal validity and legal value of decree in the eyes of law; (8) The Ld. District Judge has not returned any finding on the issue of fixing of the relevant date of eligibility in the impugned order; (9) The Lower Appellate Court has also not taken time to see what is the status of the Enquiry and why orders were not passed on the enquiry reports; (10) The impugned order does not discuss the issue of residence of the private respondent when it is a condition of eligibility; (11) Whether instead of participating in selection process the appellant ought to have challenged the Advertisement Notice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; (12) Whether the entire selection process and the issuance of belated advertisement notice is in compliance with the norms and spirit of ReT Scheme; (13) The Trial court has ignored the public policy; (14) The decree without declaring the abeyance order as null and void and without cancelling the said order, directed the official respondents to issue engagement order in favour of the plaintiff/private respondent; (15) Whether the suit of service matter is maintainable against government in present form. 5. The instant appeal has been filed on 1st June 2018, but substantial questions of law have not been framed. It is submission of counsel for appellant that afore-quoted questions are substantial questions of law. 6. Let me first take up Issue no.15. Insofar as suits by or against the Government is concerned, Sections 79 to 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for general principles concerning suits involving governmental authority and Order 27, CPC, deals with the procedure to implement the said sections. The suits involving government are special cases and not, therefore, the procedure followed is different from what is followed in ordinary civil cases. An example of this is Section 80 CPC, which mandates the party filing a suit against government to deliver a notice maintaining the plaintiff's intention tow months before the institution of the suit. In ordinary suits, notice need not be given to defendant by plaintiff before filing of suit. In terms of Section 80(1) CPC, a notice is required to be sent two months before filing a suit. Section 80 (2) allows private individuals to file a suit against the government without serving the notice to the public officer if the matter is of an urgent nature. In terms of Section 80(1) CPC, a notice is required to be sent two months before filing a suit. Section 80 (2) allows private individuals to file a suit against the government without serving the notice to the public officer if the matter is of an urgent nature. It must be taken into account that the procedures enshrined under the Code of Civil Procedure are nothing but handmaid of justice and if any injustice were to be caused due to one's failure to follow a procedure in its strictest sense, then it would be against the very purpose of creation of the judiciary, i.e., administration of justice. Therefore, suit of respondent no.5 was maintainable against private respondents. The issue no.15 is, accordingly, answered. 7. Issue nos.6, 10, 13 and 14 need to be deliberated upon here. When the suit was filed by respondent no.5 before the Trial Court, official respondents caused their appearance and projected their stand. During pendency of the suit, it was brought to the notice of Trial Court that official respondents had no objection if decree prayed for by respondent no.5 was passed and, accordingly, statement of both counsels was recorded, and decree passed. In such circumstances, Issue nos.6, 10, 13 and 14 are nothing but repetition of same questions which have been set at rest by the First Appellate Court and, are, thus, answered. 8. Rest of the issues raised by appellant, viz. 1 to 5, 7, to 9, 10 to 12, relate to first appeal and impugned judgement given by the First Appellate Court. While passing impugned judgement dated 27th March 2018, the First Appellate Court has discussed and deliberated upon in detail all the aspects of the matter. As can be seen from perusal of impugned judgement, the First Appellate Court has rightly relied upon a judgement passed in SWP no.802/2015 titled as Hilal Ahmad Bhat and another v. State of J&K and others, to hold that mere delay in issuance of advertisement notice cannot be a ground for quashing selection process. The First Appellate Court has thereafter relied upon various judgements of the Supreme Court which cannot be said to be wrong reliance placed upon by it as those judgements square off the issues, raised by appellant either before First Appellate Court or before this Court. The First Appellate Court has thereafter relied upon various judgements of the Supreme Court which cannot be said to be wrong reliance placed upon by it as those judgements square off the issues, raised by appellant either before First Appellate Court or before this Court. The aforesaid issues raised by appellant in the instant appeal are mere reiteration of the issues which have been deliberated upon and decided by the First Appellate Court and are not, as such, substantial questions of law. 9. Official respondents in their objections have brought all the facts before this Court, which cannot be disputed. Perusal thereof reveals that Primary School Manzoo (Education Zone Mattan) came to be upgraded under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA) Plan 2008-09 during the year 2010-2011, but its upgradation and deployment of Head Teacher as well as engagement of ReTs as per the scheme was subject to certain conditions envisaged in the upgradation order. It has been stated by respondents that condition no.8 contained in upgradation order provided that the school proposed for upgradation should not be an EGS centre turned primary school and, as such, it had become an issue to advertise the ReT positions in the upgraded school as the school was falling under the category of EGS centre turned to Primary School. It has been also submission of Mr. Sheikh Musthaq, learned AAG appearing for respondents 1 to 4, that to clarify the above position, respondent no.4 sought necessary clarification. It was after respondent no.3 issued go-ahead directions that advertisement notice dated 19th July 2012 was issued inviting application for engagement of ReTs. A panel was framed but respondent no.5's empanelment was objected by appellant herein on account of her residence. Further contention of Mr Mushtaq, learned AAG, is that full-dress enquiry was conducted concerning domicile of respondent no.5 herein. It had come to surface that complainant, Shahzada Iqbal – appellant herein, had challenged domicile status of respondent no.5 which was unjust in view of PRC document issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. It is also contended by Mr Sheikh Mushtaq, learned AAG, that appellant partook in selection process. Her merit was found low, so was not considered. Thus, appellant has no reason or right to seek selection or challenge anybody's selection against second ReT position. That is the reason that the First Appellate Court dismissed appellant's appeal. There is substance in submissions of Mr. Her merit was found low, so was not considered. Thus, appellant has no reason or right to seek selection or challenge anybody's selection against second ReT position. That is the reason that the First Appellate Court dismissed appellant's appeal. There is substance in submissions of Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, learned AAG. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent findings recorded by courts below in favour of plaintiff/respondent no.5 are fully justified by the evidence on record. The stand taken by appellant has been rightly found untenable and has been rightly discarded. Thus, no question of law muchless substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. As a consequence of which the appeal is dismissed in limine. 11. Copy of this judgement be sent down along with the record, if any, received from the courts below. Dismissed.