., J. ( 1 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal, with the consent of the counsels. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are represented by Sri m. b. Kanavi, learned counsel and Smt. Rosa paremal, government pleader, appearing for the state. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in all these petitions are eligible candidates for the post of teachers. They have filed their applications for the said post within the stipulated time of 21-6-2001. The state government has deeided to recruit the teachers in the higher secondary schools in the state and notifications have been issued dated 17-5-2001, 26-5-2001, 19-5-2001 and 21-5-2001 in terms of Annexure - a. The petitioners state that there are two grades of teachers who are to be recruited by the state government. One is grade ii, arts and science teachers and in grade i, physical education teachers. The petitioners state that the selection to the post of teachers is to be based on the marks obtained by the candidates in their degree examinations along with the marks obtained in the oral interview, which will be the basis for the final selection. The petitioners say that the qualifying degree courses and examinations are conducted by different universities in the state. The petitioners grievance is that the candidates who come from the university, which is liberal in awarding the marks, will certainly have to claim above the candidates from other universities which are rigid in awarding the marks. The petitioners also say that there is no wide publicity with regard to this notification. With these allegations, the petitioners are before this court seeking for the following prayers: (1) issue a writ of mandamus, quashing the notifications in question vide: (a) g4:recruitment:06:2001-02, dated 17-5-2001, Mysore division (Annexure-A); (b) a 1 -hsstr-01/01-02, dated 26-5-2001, Bangalore division (annexure-b) ; (c) e3 : hsstr : 46 : 2000-01, dated 19-5-2001, belgaum division (Annexure-C); (d) e 1 (a) admn : hsstr : l : 2001-02, dated 21-5-2001, gulbarga division (Annexure-D ). (2) direct the respondents to conduct a common entrance test/common competitive exam for the post of teachers, on par with the exams conducted/conducting for head masters of high school, primary school teachers and the gazetted probationers exams, in the larger interest of public and Justice and equity. (3) to consider the seniority of the candidates who have enrolled and waiting in the employment exchange offices since many years for the recruitment. (3) to consider the seniority of the candidates who have enrolled and waiting in the employment exchange offices since many years for the recruitment. (4) issue such further orders or directions as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity. ( 4 ) SIMILAR prayers are made in the connected matters in W. P. Nos. 25719 to 25724 of 2001. The state government has filed a statement of objection, pursuant to the notice issued by this court. They say in para 4 that the marks obtained in degree courses are made as a basis for selection. The eligibility of candidates cannot be assessed properly and the treatment of inequality among the candidates is denied. They also say in para 5 that wide publicity is given in the newspapers, radio, television and other modes of employment bulletins in the matter. The petitioners also say that in identical circumstances, this court has rejected the writ petition in W. P. No. 27992 of 1992. They further say that the present procedure adopted by the government has been accepted by courts of law. The petitioners also say that they have received 40,093 applications for 526 posts. With these averments, the respondents want the petitions to be dismissed. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri m. b. Kanavi, learned counsel for the petitioners, who reiterates the facts and grounds raised in the petition. ( 6 ) SMT. Rosa paremal, government pleader supports the action in the light of the objection statement already filed in the case on hand. ( 7 ) THE question that arises for my consideration is as to whether necessary publicity has been given by the state government with regard to recruitment of teachers? In this connection, it is relevant to quote para 5 itself in this regard: "insofar as the petitioners' contention that candidates only from the employment exchange list should be considered for the post of teachers and physical education teacher is directly in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of excise superintendent, malkapatnam, krishna district, Andhra Pradesh v k. b. n. Vishweshwara rao. Their lordships have clearly held that it is not only from the employment exchanges the authorities should call for the applications, but also wide publicity in the newspapers, radio, t. v. And other modes of employment bulletins should be made and it is only thereafter, consider the cases of the candidates together. This Hon'ble court had an occasion to consider the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W. P. No. 27992 of 1992, while dealing with the correctness of calling for applications for appointment to the post of high school teachers in gulbarga division. After considering the identical contention put forth by the petitioners therein, this Hon'ble court has rejected the same, by its order dated 25-9-1998. Thus, this Hon'ble court has upheld the procedure adopted by the state government for inviting applications through public media as laid down by the Supreme Court. In the instant case also, it is respectfully submitted that the authorities have taken steps to publish the notification calling for applications by all eligible candidates by giving wide publicity in the media. In fact, about 40,093 applications have been received for 526 posts. Thus, steps have been taken as held by the Supreme Court by publishing notifications in the newspapers by giving wider publicity and also displacing the same in the office notice boards including publishing in employment news bulletins. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that applications should be called only from employment exchanges on seniority basis is contrary to the decision of the apex court. It is appropriate to submit that the respondents have taken all steps to call for applications in order to see that the process of selection is completed and recruitment is made to enable the availability of teachers in this academic year itself. Under the circumstances, any contention of the petitioner to adopt different procedure than the one prescribed in the rules will lead to not only delay in the process, but multiplicity of litigation". A reading of para 5 would show that the government has taken necessary steps with regard to the publicity of recruitment to the extent possible, by them. Moreover, as rightly mentioned by the respondents there are 526 posts and there are more than 40,000 applications, received by the government. This itself evidences that there is wide publicity with regard to the recruitment. Therefore, this contention is rejected. Moreover, as rightly mentioned by the respondents there are 526 posts and there are more than 40,000 applications, received by the government. This itself evidences that there is wide publicity with regard to the recruitment. Therefore, this contention is rejected. Insofar as the selection is concerned, the petitioners state that some of the candidates are handicapped for no fault of them. According to the petitioners, the granting of marks vary from university to university. The petitioners say in para 8 that one university is liberal in awarding the marks, whereas, the other is not. The petitioners therefore say that a common entrance test is required in the case on hand. I am of the view that these matters are to be left to the respondent-authorities. They are the best judges, with regard to the selection and assessment. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the case on hand, they have taken the marks obtained in the university as a basis. It cannot be said to be either irrational or arbitrary. No exception can be taken to this accepted principle in the matter of recruitment. The basis by itself does not render the entire process as illegal or invalid as contended by the petitioners. However, it is made clear that if any specific grievance with regard to any particular candidate is pointed out at any time, this court shall not shirk its responsibility in interfering in a right case. In the case on hand, except making general allegations, no specific instance of injustice is pointed out by the petitioners in these cases. Therefore, I am unable to accept the second contention of the petitioner as well in this petition. No other contentions are urged. In these circumstances, i do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in these matters at this stage. ( 9 ) THE petitioners, however, have filed a memo on 2-11-2001. In the said memo, the petitioners have stated that the state government, noticing the irregularities in the matter, seems to have decided to quash the divisionwise selection list and call for fresh notification for the above post. They rely upon the decision of the cabinet, in terms of a paper publication. They say that it should be taken note of by the court. It is made clear that it is for the state to take such decision depending upon the circumstances of each case. They rely upon the decision of the cabinet, in terms of a paper publication. They say that it should be taken note of by the court. It is made clear that it is for the state to take such decision depending upon the circumstances of each case. This court does not come in the way of any decision of the government. The court cannot rely on a paper publication in these matters. Therefore, notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, it is made clear that the state government is free to take its own decision in the event of any irregularities as stated in the memo. ( 10 ) WITH these clarifications, these petitions stand rejected. Parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .