JUDGMENT : 1. The issues involved in the instant petitions are akin and analogous to each other, as such, are disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS • An advertisement notice came to be issued by the respondent 4 herein for filling up the available vacancies of Teachers in Village Banderpora, Tehsil and District Pulwama under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) fixing the last date of receipt of applications as 10.03.2004. The petitioners herein claim to have applied for consideration against the posts in question whereafter panel is stated to have drawn by the official respondents as follows: (i) Bashir Ahmad Padroo S/o Ghulam Hassan padroo (10+2) (ii) Mohammad Shafi Bandh S/o Ghulam Ahmad Bandh (10+2) (iii) Zahoor Ahmad Mir S/o Ghulam Rasool Mir (10+2) (iv) Shahid Ahmad Padroo S/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo (10+2) (v) Shagufta Masood D/o Mohammad Shaban Padroo (10+2) • One Manzoor Ahmad Bandh/respondent 5 herein have filed a petition being SWP no. 706/2005 before this court against the selection process undertaken by the official respondents qua the posts in question wherein the impugned selection process came to be quashed by this Court on 19.04.2006 with a direction to the official respondents to conduct fresh selection process. • Two appeals being LPA no. 227/2006 and LPA no. 352/2006 came to be preferred by above named Manzoor Ahmad Bandh/ respondent 5 herein and one Zahoor Ahmed Mir against the judgment dated 19.04.2006 passed in SWP no. 706/2005 (supra) which appeals came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 20.02.2008 in terms of the following directions: (i) Application of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh for the post of RT Guide is held to be filed within prescribed time. (ii) ZEO concerned of the relevant time is found to have refused to receive application of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh with the bonafide intention as spelled out in the communication addressed to Director School Education, Kashmir referred hereinabove. (iii) Judgment impugned ordering re-initiation of the whole selection process as well as selection process ordered to be conducted by Chief Education Officer, is set aside. (iv) The panel as has been preferred by the ZEO concerned shall be re-framed within one month from the date of order after considering requisite merit/qualification of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh along with the candidates who figure in the already prepared panel. (iv) The panel as has been preferred by the ZEO concerned shall be re-framed within one month from the date of order after considering requisite merit/qualification of Manzoor Ahmad Bandh along with the candidates who figure in the already prepared panel. • Pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.02.2008 (supra), the official respondents drew a fresh panel reflecting therein following candidates: (i) Bashir Ahmad Padroo (ii) Zahoor Ahmad Mir (iii) Shahid Ahmad Padroo (iv) Shagufta Masood (v) Manzoor Ahmad Bandh. 2. Aggrieved of the reframing of the panel pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners herein preferred SWP no. 555/2008 before this Court impleading besides official respondents therein also impleaded said Manzoor Ahmad Bandh as respondent 5 and Mohammad Khalil Bandh, the then Minister of Works, State of Jammu and Kashmir as respondent no. 6 and prayed therein following reliefs: (i) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to make the selection process on the post of teachers under SSA scheme in Government School, Banderpora Pulwama in strict compliance of the SSA scheme prevalent in the State and the respondents 1 to 4 directed to accord due consideration to the petitioners and taking into account their higher qualification i.e. the merit of their graduation and B.Ed courses while finalizing the selection process. (ii) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners on the post of teachers in the Government School Banderpora Pulwama on the basis of their merit qualification and suitability. (iii) Respondents 1 to 4 be also commanded not to abuse the selection process in question and be restrained from restricting the selection process on the basis of eligibility criteria i.e 10+2. (iii) Respondents 1 to 4 be also commanded not to abuse the selection process in question and be restrained from restricting the selection process on the basis of eligibility criteria i.e 10+2. The aforesaid reliefs came to be prayed in the petition (supra) by the petitioners on the premise that the petitioner 1 passed his matriculation examination in the year 1997, 10+2 examination in the year 2002 through Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education and thereafter his BA general course examination in the year December 2003-January 2004 through University of Kashmir and lastly passed his B.Ed examination through University of Kashmir in the year 2006 and that the petitioner 2 passed her matriculation examination in the year 1999, 10+2 in the year 2001, BA general course examination in the year December 2004-January 2005 as also B.Ed examination in the session April-May 2006 and that the official respondents with malafide design were bent upon to appoint respondent 5 herein through political intervention excluding the higher qualifications and merits possessed by the petitioners. 3. In the objections filed to the aforesaid petition, the official respondents stated that in compliance to the directions passed by the Division Bench, the respondent 5 herein came to be included in the panel drawn by them on the basis of his merit whereupon two meritorious candidates were recommended for selection against which the petitioners objected to on the ground that they are graduates and in the panel their qualification has shown to be only 10+2 and that on consideration of the objections, it transpired that the petitioners have had acquired the higher qualifications after the cut- off date provided in the advertisement notice and that the petitioner 1 was found to have qualified his graduation on 14.07.2004 being a re-appear case after the cut-off date provided in the advertisement notice whereas petitioner no. 2 had qualified her graduation on 1.3.2005 after the cut-off date. 4. During the pendency of the petition SWP no. 555/2008 (supra), the petitioners herein preferred SWP no. 607/2008 after the official respondents reframed the panel and published the same on 12.04.2008 and 22.04.2008 respectively reflecting therein the respondents 5 and 7 in the petition-SWP no. 607/2008 to be the candidates found to have been meritorious and eligible for appointment against the posts in question. 555/2008 (supra), the petitioners herein preferred SWP no. 607/2008 after the official respondents reframed the panel and published the same on 12.04.2008 and 22.04.2008 respectively reflecting therein the respondents 5 and 7 in the petition-SWP no. 607/2008 to be the candidates found to have been meritorious and eligible for appointment against the posts in question. The said panel came to be objected by the petitioners herein by filing objections, however, without waiting for the outcome of the said objections, the petitioners preferred the writ petition-SWP No. 607/2008 (supra) praying therein the following reliefs; (i) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to make the selection process on the post of teachers under SSA scheme in Government School, Banderpora Pulwama in strict compliance of the SSA scheme prevalent in the State and the respondents 1 to 4 be directed to accord due consideration to the petitioners and taking into account their higher qualification i.e. the merit of their graduation and B.Ed courses while finalizing the selection process. (ii) Commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners on the post of teachers in the Government School Banderpora Pulwama on the basis of their merit qualification and suitability. (iii) Respondents 1 to 4 be also commanded not to abuse the selection process in question and be restrained from restricting the selection process on the basis of eligibility criteria i.e 10+2. 5. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents 1 to 4 as well as respondents 5 to 7 as well. In the objections filed by the official respondents, it is being specifically stated that in compliance to the orders passed by the Division Bench, a fresh panel of eligible candidates including that of respondent 5 herein came to be framed whereafter upon considering the merit of all the candidates including the petitioners herein, the respondents 5 and 7 herein came to be engaged in terms of order no. CEO/Pul/08/1342 dated 12.5.2008, however, subject to the directions/orders/final outcome of the writ petition. It has been further stated in the objections that both the selectees/appointees after putting in requisite period of service as ReTs satisfactorily came to be converted as regular teachers (Grade-II). CEO/Pul/08/1342 dated 12.5.2008, however, subject to the directions/orders/final outcome of the writ petition. It has been further stated in the objections that both the selectees/appointees after putting in requisite period of service as ReTs satisfactorily came to be converted as regular teachers (Grade-II). In the objections filed by the respondents 5 and 7, it is being reiterated that the answering respondents came to be engaged on 12.5.2008 by the official respondents after the official respondents considered the merit of all the empanelled candidates including the petitioners herein and that the petitioners’ qualification of 10+2 rightly came to be taken into consideration while considering them along with other empanelled candidates for selection and appointment excluding their BA qualification having been acquired by them after the cut-off date of 10.03.2004. It is also reiterated in the objections by the respondents 5 and 7 that after their appointments as ReTs, they came to be converted as regular teachers (Grade-II) by the official respondents and are as such continuously working against the said posts. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the official respondent 4 issued the advertisement notice inviting applications for filling up the posts of ReTs under SSA scheme fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 10.03.2004. The fact also remains that on account of non-consideration of his candidature, the respondent 5 instituted SWP no. 706/2005 before this Court wherein judgment came to be passed on 19.04.2006 in favour of the respondent 5. Indisputably the said judgment dated 19.04.2006 became subject matter of two appeals, one filed by respondent 5 herein and the other by one Zahir Ahmed Mir being LPA Nos. 227/2006 and 352/2006 which appeals came to be disposed of on 20.02.2008 by the Division Bench, inter alia, on the conclusion that the application filed by respondent 5 herein for the post in question is held to have been filed within the prescribed period requiring the respondent 4 to re-frame the panel drawn by him considering the requisite merit/qualification of respondent 5 along with the candidates who figured in the already prepared panel including therein the petitioners herein. 7. 7. Perusal of the record tends to show that the official respondents upon re-framing of panel pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench dated 20.02.2008 recommended respondents 5 and 7 herein for appointment against the posts in question on account of their superior merit in 10+2 than the other empanelled candidates including the petitioners herein consequently, appointed respondents 5 and 7 in terms of order dated 07.05.2008. Record indisputably also reveals that petitioner 1 herein had qualified his B.A. examination on 14.07.2004 after having failed in Urdu subject whereas the petitioner 2 qualified B.A. examination on 01.03.2005. Further perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner 1 has secured 249/600 marks in the 10+2 examination whereas the petitioner 2 had secured 293/600 marks in the 10+2 examination whereas, respondent 5 has secured 333/600 marks in 10+2 and respondent 7 has secured 325/600 marks in 10+2 examination. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual position, thus the petitioners cannot be said to have a claim against the posts in question as against the selection and appointment of respondents 5 and 7 for two fold reasons; firstly, that the petitioners indisputably have inferior merit position than the respondents 5 and 7 in 10+2 examinations and secondly, graduation qualification of the petitioners came to be acquired by them after the cut-off date i.e. 10.03.2004. 9. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant petitions. Resultantly, the petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications, if any.