P.P.NEOLEKAR, CJ- Heard Mr M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr K.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1-57, and Mr P.C. Deka, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 58 and 59 as well as Mrs A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The facts required for adjudication of the question involved in the case in short compass are that on 10.9.1996, the Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (for short, the BRPL) and the Delhi Public School Society (fort short, the DPS) entered into an agreement to set up a new school at BRPL Complex with the name, "Delhi Public School, Dhaligaon". On 5.11.96, the DPS issued an advertisement for recruitment of Principal, Headmistress, Trained Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers. Aggrieved by the issuance of the advertisement and filling up of the posts by new entrants by the DPS Society, the erstwhile employees of the BRPL school filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, gave the following directions:- "(i) This Court's order dated 16.5.97 quoted in paragraph 7 of this judgment reads, inter alia, "the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Delhi Public School, on whose favour Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel appeared, submits that there is no difficulty with regard to the retention of the non-teaching staff." In view of such submission, the respondent No. 4 shall retain all the non-teaching staff petitioners serving in Dream Flower School on the date of termination of the agreement with the respondent No. 3. (ii) It is stated in the above mentioned order dated 16.5.97 that out of teaching staff of Dream Flower School, twenty have already been selected in the interview. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 shall take action to appoint these twenty teaching staff petitioners, if not already appointed, within one month from the date of this judgment and order. (iii) It is further stated in the above mentioned order dated 16.5.97 that out of teaching staff of the Dream Flower School, eight appeared in the interview, but were not selected, four others appeared but did not participate in the interview and one (petitioner No. 35) was inadvertently not called for the interview. The respondent Nos. (iii) It is further stated in the above mentioned order dated 16.5.97 that out of teaching staff of the Dream Flower School, eight appeared in the interview, but were not selected, four others appeared but did not participate in the interview and one (petitioner No. 35) was inadvertently not called for the interview. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 shall take action to call these thirteen teaching staff petitioners except the ones who might have been regularly appointed in the meantime, to a fresh interview on a date to be fixed by the respondent No. 4 in consultation with the respondent No. 1 within six weeks from the date of this judgment and order serving upon them at least two weeks notice. The interview board shall consist of three Cotton College Professors to be nominated by the respondent No. 5, State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, one person to be nominated by the respondent No. 1, Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and another- to be nominated by the respondent No. 4, Delhi Public School Society. The senior most of the three Cotton College Professors to be nominated by the respondent No. 5, shall be the Chairman of the Interview Board. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4 shall take action to appoint all such teaching staff petitioners appearing for the interview and found eligible for appointment (un-trained staff if found otherwise eligible may be deputed to acquire professional qualification vide condition No. 13 of the letter, Annexure-K, dated 12.5.97, from the Central Board of Secondary Education) by the Interview Board constituted as aforesaid within two weeks from the date of interview." 3. The writ appellant, aggrieved by the directions, particularly, direction No. (iii), filed a Review Application. As per the appellant, the Chairman of the Interview Board should be the Chairman of the Delhi Public School Society, and secondly, once the Court gave a direction for interview, then it is not the eligibility of the candidate but the suitability of the candidate which should be considered for selecting and appointing the candidates interviewed. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the submissions made by the appellant and rejected the review application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the submissions made by the appellant and rejected the review application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr M.K. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant, with his usual fairness, has conceded that for the present case he does not insist for change of the Chairman of the interview board as directed by the learned Single Judge as one time concession and thus we are not required to take into consideration the argument advanced for change of the Chairman of the Interview Board. 5. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for changing the criteria of eligibility to suitability, we are in agreement with the submission made. Once the directions have been issued for holding an interview, it is for the Interview Committee to select a suitable candidate. When the learned Single Judge gave a direction for holding an interview, it is only the suitable candidates who are found fit by the Interview Board, will be selected and appointed. Eligibility would be for appearing before the Interview Board for selection to the post. Once the learned Single Judge gave direction for holding an interview, the consideration will be of suitability of the person appearing in the interview and not the eligibility - eligibility being already decided by the learned Single Judge and directions were given permitting the erstwhile employees to appear in the interview. For the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct that the Interview Board shall take into consideration for appointment, the suitability of the candidates and not the eligibility. 6. The appeal is partly allowed, as aforesaid. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.