Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application was preferred by petitioners against the orders of appointment made in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 10 with further prayer to consider the case of petitioners for appointment to the posts of Headmistress in Nationalised/project school in pursuance of Advertisement no. 3/91. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the petitioners are working as Asstt. Teachers in different High Schools and being eligible for appointment to the posts of Asstt. Teacher applied in pursuance of Advertisement no. 3/91 alongwith others including respondent nos. 4 to 7. Initially, a panel was prepared by Vidyalaya Seva Board (Board for short) out of which names were recommended. Initially, appointment orders were issued in favour of 14 candidates. One Manju Jha at that stage preferred a writ petition C.W.J.C. no. 9405/94, wherein interim order was passed that the appointment will be subject to the result of the said writ petition, which was allowed and the panel was cancelled. It was ordered to prepare a fresh panel after fresh interview and selection. In pursuance of direction passed in the said case, fresh selection was made and panel was prepared. Initially, roaster clearance of 150 vacancies were obtained followed by roster clearance of subsequent 51 posts (201 posts in total). In the first phase, 150 posts of Headmistress were filled up vide order issued on 2.5.1996 followed by orders issued on 18.5.1996, 3.1.1997 and 26.8.1997. 3. The writ petition was preferred by petitioners on different grounds as stated hereunder : (a) The respondents had not filled up the total 50% posts which were not reserved and meant for general candidates. (b) The appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 10 was made though they were not qualified, having no requisite qualification and/or experience by the cut-off date. 4. According to petitioners, the respondent no. 4 obtained M.Sc. (Botany) degree as a regular student of R.K. College, Madhubani though she was working during that period as an Asstt. Teacher in Girls High School, Jainagar. Similarly, respondent no. 5, who had to clear three years degree course in Arts, appeared in examination for 300 marks of Sociology whereas she was required to appear in course for 900 total marks with English as a compulsory subject. Without passing those examination, she directly appeared in M.A. Sociology examination from L.N. Mithila University as private candidate and passed the same. 5, who had to clear three years degree course in Arts, appeared in examination for 300 marks of Sociology whereas she was required to appear in course for 900 total marks with English as a compulsory subject. Without passing those examination, she directly appeared in M.A. Sociology examination from L.N. Mithila University as private candidate and passed the same. Thereby, both of them are not entitled for any point for post graduate degree, it is stated that the matter was reported to the authorities when a three men Committee was constituted which found the allegation against respondent nos. 4 & 5 as true. So far as respondent no. 6 is concerned, it is alleged that she was appointed as Asstt. Teacher in 1993. She was shown as general category in the first panel as also in the second panel. However, at the time of appointment, she was given appointment as reserved category. Specific plea made that the respondent no. 6 never applied as a reserved category but the Director breaking the roaster point and ignoring the reservation policy appointed her as a reserved category candidate. In respect of respondent no. 7, allegation made that she had no requisite experience by the cut-off date but she has been included in the panel and given appointment. Like respondent no. 6, similar allegation made against respondent no. 8 that she belonged to general category but appointed as a reserved category though never claimed. According to petitioners, respondent no. 9 was born in a Bhumihar family but subsequently married to a most backward class person, who is a Chandrabanshi Kahar. Thus she has been illegally granted benefit of reservation. So far as respondent no. 10 is concerned, it is stated that she was shown as M.A., B.Ed, in old panel but in the subsequent panel, she has been shown to be M.Ed. 5. In view of various allegations made, this Court directed the respondents to produce the reservation points; combined panel out of which appointment made as also the orders of appointment. The original file was produced by the respondents. On the basis of roster point and merit list, I personally checked up the position of individuals, including the petitioners in the matter of appointment. The original file was produced by the respondents. On the basis of roster point and merit list, I personally checked up the position of individuals, including the petitioners in the matter of appointment. After going through the roster point (No. 185 of 385 i.e. 201 posts), I find that their is some mistake in the matter of preparation of roster point by the respondents. However, such mistake seems to have been rectified when the orders of appointment have been issued in favour of one or other candidate, including the respondent nos. 4 to 10. From the merit list, I find that thet positions of respondent nos. 10, 9, 4 & 6 are above the petitioners and thereby, no specific grievance can be made by the petitioners against them. \ So far as their educational qualification is concerned, no direct challenge having made against obtaining post graduate qualification/post graduate degree, in the matter of appointment, the petitioners cannot challenge the same indirectly. This apart, I find that the respondents have controverted the allegation as made by the petitioners. Though the name of respondent no. 8 is below the name of petitioner no. 1 and the intervenors. Smt. Poonam Singh, Rajitri Trivedi, Smt. Poonam, Smt. Manju Jha, Smt. Hazia Khatoon and Smt. Asha Sahay but the petitioners intervenors cannot make any grievance against the appointment of respondent no. 8 having appointed against a post reserved for backward category, as she belonged to the same category. The rest of the intervenors, Smt. Malti Singh and Smt. Nirmala Kumari, their positions being below the names of respondent nos. 4 to 10 and as the intervenors also belonged to general category, no case is made out. This apart, I find that the petitioner no. 2 on the basis of her position in the merit list do not come within the zone of appointment even against 201 posts. Thereby, I find no illegality in the matter of appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 10 and such prayer made by petitioners is rejected. This apart, I find that many of petitioners and the intervenors earlier moved this Court including C.W.J.C. no. 5613/96 against recommendation and non-inclusion of their names in the orders of appointment. The Court did not choose to interfere with any order of appointment and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 22.11.1996. In another case C.W.J.C. no. This apart, I find that many of petitioners and the intervenors earlier moved this Court including C.W.J.C. no. 5613/96 against recommendation and non-inclusion of their names in the orders of appointment. The Court did not choose to interfere with any order of appointment and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 22.11.1996. In another case C.W.J.C. no. 4206/97 preferred by intervenor Azma Khatoon and some others. The Court vide order dated 3.11.1997 has already directed to fill up the non-joining vacancies. 6. In the circumstances, no specific relief can be granted in favour of petitioners, though it will be open to the respondents to fill up the non-joining vacancies, in accordance with law and the other vacancies, if one or other intervenor and/or petitioner no. 1 come within the zone of appointment at the time of filling up the non-joining vacancies, this order will not stand against them. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.