JUDGMENT : (Sanjeev Kumar, J.) 1. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that vide advertisement notification No. 106 dated 09.04.2009, the applications were invited from eligible candidates of Jammu Division for filling up Jammu cadre posts of Junior Assistant. 2. The selection process was undertaken by the selection committee constituted by the High Court for the purpose. The selection process culminated into select list in the year 2013 in which the petitioner could not find his name amongst the selected candidates. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner called in question the select list in SWP No. 1895/2013 titled “Mohd. Rafeeq v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors” seeking inter alia a Writ of Certiorari to set aside and quash the selection of private respondents as Junior Assistant by declaring the same as illegal. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to re-draw and prepare the merit afresh giving weightage to higher qualification of the petitioner and his performance in the written examination. 4. The writ petition came for consideration by this Court on 30.12.2019 when learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the prayers made in the writ petition and rather stated at bar that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner by treating his writ petition as representation. The prayer of the petitioner was accepted and, accordingly, vide order dated 30.12.2019, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner by treating it as a representation. The matter thus came up for consideration before the respondent-High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. 5. The High Court concluded that the grievance projected by the petitioner, in his writ petition that he was more meritorious than the selected candidates, could not be verified due to non-availability of relevant record which, as per the report of the record office, had been lost in the devastating flood in September, 2014. The consideration order bearing No. 155 of 2022/Psy dated 07.02.2022 was passed by the High Court. 6. It is this order of consideration which the petitioner has called in question in this petition with a prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the selection of private respondent Nos. The consideration order bearing No. 155 of 2022/Psy dated 07.02.2022 was passed by the High Court. 6. It is this order of consideration which the petitioner has called in question in this petition with a prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the selection of private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 as Junior Assistant by declaring the same as illegal. The respondents have filed their objections and have supported the consideration order passed by the High Court. 7. Having heard the petitioner in person and Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. From a plain reading of impugned consideration order dated 07.02.2022, it becomes abundantly clear that other than making a bald assertion that the petitioner had a better merit than the selected candidates, no substantial material has been placed on record to corroborate the aforesaid submission. 9. That apart, when the earlier writ petition bearing SWP No. 1895/2013 filed by the petitioner was disposed of, the petitioner had foregone his challenge to the select list and the selection of the private respondents. However, he felt satisfied with the direction to the respondents to consider his representation. The respondents have considered this representation and plea of the petitioner that he was more meritorious, though not supported by any material, could not be verified due to non-availability of relevant selection record which had been lost in the devastating floods of September, 2014. 10. In these circumstances, no relief should have been granted to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner projected in the writ petition. 11. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.