CWP No.664 of 2008. 27.11.2008. Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner along with others had applied for the appointment under the Scheme of Vidya Upasak. In the process he was interviewed on 11th July, 2002. Thereafter, Reeta Devi was appointed as Vidya Upasak. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was at Sr.No.3 of the list. The candidate i.e. Ramesh Chand, who was at Sr.No.2 of the list had challenged the appointment of Reeta Devi as Vidya Upasak by filing Original Application. The said Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed, which was ultimately allowed by a judgment dated 12th July, 2007. Thereafter, Ramesh Chand did not join and the petitioner moved an application indicating that he was next to Ramesh Chand, therefore, he be appointed as Vidya Upasak under the Scheme. The petitioner was not appointed. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was next to Ramesh Chand as he had refused to join as Vidya Upasak. The learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to the fact that the Scheme of Vidya Upasak was abolished by a Notification dated 16th September, 2005 and the said stand has categorically been taken by the State in their response before this Court. From the perusal of the judgment dated 12th July, 2007, we find that there is no such objection or stand by the State that Vidya Upasak Scheme was abolished on 16th September, 2005. There is some mistake on the part of the official contesting on behalf of the State and it was a part of his duty to bring this fact to the knowledge of this Court. But someone fails somewhere. Therefore, the judgment dated 12th July, 2007 came. Had it been brought to the knowledge of the Court at a particular time that the Scheme had already been abolished, the judgment could have been otherwise. Further grievance of the petitioner is to the extent that certain directions were issued for the appointment of Ramesh Chand inspite of the stand taken on behalf of the State that the Scheme was abolished on 16th September, 2005. This is a serious matter. Once the Scheme was abolished, it was the duty of the respondents to bring the same to the knowledge of the Court with a prayer to review the judgment dated 12th July, 2007. Further, it is unfortunate that since there was no Scheme in existence, efforts were made to appoint Ramesh Chand, which can only be a sham compliance in the absence of the Scheme. We are of the considered opinion that once the Scheme is abolished the post under the Scheme automatically stands abolished. We further find that in the earlier writ petition, merit of Reeta Devi and Ramesh Chand was compared and admittedly Reeta Devi was higher in merit list than the petitioner as well. Accordingly, she was a necessary party to this writ petition. But somehow she has not been impleaded as such. In light of the above discussion, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 27th November, 2008. (Kuldip Singh), J. (tr)