JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA & G.C. BHARUKA, JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint them as they had been declared successful and are in the panel of successful candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers. 2. In 1985 an advertisement has been issued by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board. The said advertisement is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioners applied for one of they posts of Assistant Teacher of Biology and the were called for interviews, by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board by reason of the letters which are contained in Annexure 2 and 2/1 to the writ application. 3. Interview of the candidates had been held in August 1989 to October, 1989. On 16.2.1990 the Vidyalaya Sewa Board declared the result of 699 successful candidates (Annexure-3). According to the petitioners the petitioner no. 1 was placed at serial no. 19 and petitioner no. 2 was placed at serial no. 46 of the merit List. 4. According to the petitioners, the Vidyalaya Sewa Board had allotted 70 marks for educational qualification and 30% marks for interview. The petitioners have contended that allotment of 30% marks for interview is bad in law. 5. It was further submitted that by reason of a letter dated 20.2.1991 which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application the panel prepared had been canceled. In the writ application itself the petitioner have stated that a similar writ application being CWJC 933 of 1991 had been filed which has been pending in this court. The said CWJC No. 933 of 1991 has been dismissed by a division Bench of this court by an order dated 22.11.1991. In the said judgment the advertisement in question i.e. Advertisement No. 1 of 1988 was also the subject matter of consideration. The Division Bench upon taking into consideration various decisions including the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 1612 held that the petitioners have no legal right to be appointed. In view of the aforementioned binding decisions in our opinion, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. So far as second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, as the entire panel has been canceled, the same has become academic. In view of the aforementioned binding decisions in our opinion, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. So far as second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, as the entire panel has been canceled, the same has become academic. In any event, the petitioners appeared before the interview Board and took a chance for their selection on the basis of the policy decision adopted by the State relating to allotment of marks at the interview. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not intend to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. In Munindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 1607 the Supreme Court refused to exercise its discretion having held that in interviews, not more than 15% marks of the total marks should be allotted. 8. Before parting with this case, however, we may mentioned that the cases of the petitioners should be considered alongwith all other eligible candidates in the light of the direction contained in the impugned order dated 20.2.1991 (Annexure-6). 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.