This application has been filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.7 as a Lecturer of Mathematics in Karimganj College. The admitted fact is that the petitioner got 1st division in HSLC Examination in the year 1972, passed PU (Arts) in First Division, and got 2nd Class in B.Sc and 1st Class in M.Sc. 2. The respondent No.7 who was ultimately selected by the Selection Committee passed Higher Secondary as at that point of time there was no PU and he passed Higher Secondary examination of 11 years course securing 56.8% and was placed in 2nd division. Thereafter the respondent No.7 passed B.Sc examination and got 1st Class securing 66.8% and passed M.Sc securing 70.19% and got 1st Class. 3. Thereafter, he was serving as a confirmed Lecturer in Mathematics in Rabindra Sadan Girls' College, Karimganj since 1988. He was selected by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee in view of the comparative qualification found that the respondent No. 7 was better qualified and was placed at SI No. 1 in the merit list and accordingly, the Governing Body recommended to the DPI for his appointment. It was at this stage, this writ application has been filed and stay order was passed. 4. I have heard Sri A. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. KA Mazumdar learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.5 and 6, Mr. N. Dhar learned Advocate for the respondent No.7 and Smti A. Hazarika, learned Govt Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Mazumdar learned Advocate for the Governing Body has produced before me the record of the case. 5. Mr. Roy raises three contentions : (i) There is guideline issued by the Secretary, Govt of Assam for selection of candidates and it was also provided how the marks are to be given and if that guidelines is followed regarding the marking for the academic achievement the petitioner will get more marks and the respondent No.7 cannot get more marks. (ii) Second contention is that the resondent No.7 has been given 5 marks for teaching experience but it is submitted that the petitioner also had teaching experience for a period of 2 years and in support of it, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to Annexure 7 to the writ application which will show that the petitioner was teaching in Government Girls' High Schools since 30th August, 1978. So, that cannot be a teaching experience of a college and rightly the authority did not allow her the marks. So, this contention that there was discrimination by the Selection Committee at the time of allotting marks is factually incorrect. The teaching experience in a school arid teaching experience in a college as a Lecturer cannot be equated. There is nothing in the guidelines which provides for marks for teaching experience in a school. The guideline provides that 5 marks are allotted in favour of the teaching experience of the college Lecturer who have requisite teaching experience. The respoondent No.7 had that requisite teaching experience but the petitioner did not have that requisite teaching experience. (iii) The third contention of Sri Roy is that the post of Lecturer was of the pure Mathematics but the respondent No.7 is not the Lecturer of pure Mathematics but of applied Mathematics. That was to be decided by the expert body and the expert body decided that the respondent No.7 was a better qualified in this respect. 6. From perusal of the comparative statements and of the record it is found that the petitioner secured 50 marks over all and the respondent No.7 secured 53 marks, and accordingly the recommendation was made. If this Court finds that the selection process is fair, the writ Court should be absolutely slow and circumscribed. The touchstone or the measuring rod must be applied in order to determine/find out the validity of such selection process and see that whether the selection process is fair and or not and if this Court is satisfied that the fair procedure was adopted, there is no need to interfere in the selection process done by a competent body. 7. Accordingly, after perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties as well, I find that there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. Stay order passed earlier stands vacated. 8. The respondent No.3, Director of Public Instructions, Assam, Kahilipara, Gauhati shall give approval to the recommendation of the Governing Body as early as possible inasmuch as the candidate who was validly and duly selected has suffered because of the institution of this case and obtaining the stay order thereafter.