U.B. Saha, J.;— 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 18.5.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 123 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appointment letters, dated 8.1.1999, so far as the appellant Smt. Amiya Saha and Smt. Tapati Deb, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition are concerned, were set aside and the writ petition was allowed stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner Smt. Samita Saha is eligible for appointment to the post of School Mother. 2. As these appeals are preferred against the same judgment and order, dated 18.5.2007 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for all the parties, the appeals are taken up together for final disposal by a common judgment. 3. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State appellants in W.A. 66 of 2007 and respondents in W.A. Nos.70 and 72 of 2007 and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No.70 of 2007 and respondent in W.A. Nos.66 and 72 of 2007. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No.72 of 2007 and respondent in W.A. Nos.66 and 70 of 2007 and Mr. A. K. Deb, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent in all these appeals. 4. The brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows : The respondent writ petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker vide order, dated 3.3.1976, along with the appellant Smt. Amiya Saha and Smt. Tapati Deb, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition respectively, on a consolidated amount of Rs.150 per month which has been enhanced from time to time and the respondent No.2 vide Memo No. F. 46(54)-ICDS/SWE/94 dated May, 1996 published a final seniority list of Anganwadi Workers in different Social Education Centre throughout the State of Tripura over the period from 8.3.1976 to 31.12.1982 in which the name of the writ petitioner was shown at SI. No.3 and the names of the appellant respondents 3 and 4 were shown at SI. Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. No.3 and the names of the appellant respondents 3 and 4 were shown at SI. Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. When both the writ petitioner and the appellant respondents 3 and 4 were in the said service and discharging their duties as Anganwadi workers, the State respondent authority in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of School Mother/Gram Laxmi under the Education Department (Social Welfare and Social Education), Government of Tripura vide Notification dated 9.4.1997. As per the aforesaid R. Rs, the essential educational qualification for appointment to the post of School Mother/Gram Laxmi is Class-VIII passed for general category candidates and Class-V pass for SC/ST candidates and the methods of recruitment are (i) 70% through open advertisement/Employment Exchange; (ii) 15% from among Anganwadi Workers (non-matriculate, Class V passed for SC/ST) based on seniority and eligibility; (iii) 10% from among Anganwadi Helpers based on seniority and eligibility; and (iv) 5% from among Adult Literacy Teacher/Part time Instructor based on seniority and eligibility. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that Vide Memo, dated 8.1.1999, offers of appointment to the post of School Mother were issued to the appellant respondents 3 and 4 along with others depriving the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent authority, the writ petitioner then approached this court by way of filing the aforesaid writ petition wherein she challenged the offer of appointment of the appellant respondents 3 and 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the appellant-respondents issued notice upon the respondents. 6. It appears from the office note, dated 15/16.6.1999, in the writ petition, even after proper service of notice, the appellant respondents 3 and 4 did not appear before the court. The State respondents, i.e., the State appellants in W.A. No.66 of 2007 have appeared and contested the case by way of filing counter-affidavit, wherein the State respondents denied the allegations made by the writ petitioner. 7. The State respondents, i.e., the State appellants in W.A. No.66 of 2007 have appeared and contested the case by way of filing counter-affidavit, wherein the State respondents denied the allegations made by the writ petitioner. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the State respondents, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the appointment letters, dated 8.1.1999, so far as the appellant respondents 3 and 4 are concerned with an observation that there are illegality, irregularity and arbitrariness in appointing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are admittedly junior to the petitioner to the post of School Mother under the impugned appointment letter dated 8.1.1999 neglecting the case of senior, i.e., the writ petitioner inasmuch as 15% of the vacancy in the post of School Mother under the said Recruitment Rules vide notification, dated 9.4.1997, are to be appointed from amongst the Anganwadi Workers (non-matriculate/Class-V passed for SC/ST) based on seniority and eligibility and also the petitioner is admittedly eligible for appointment to the post of School Mother. 8. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, these three appeals are before us. 9. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and order would contend that the learned Single Judge without believing the contentions of the State respondents, inter alia, that though the writ petitioner was served the interview card, she had refused to accept the same and also declined to appear in the Interview Board constituted by the authority for filling up the post of School Mother without any cogent reason. He further submits that when a person declined to accept the interview card and refused to appear before the Interview Board, the employer Government has no obligation to provide her appointment. Learned Addl. Government Advocate finally contended that when the petitioner failed to appear before the Interview Board, there was no other option except to fill up the posts from the eligible candidates appeared before the Interview Board. 10. Mr. Learned Addl. Government Advocate finally contended that when the petitioner failed to appear before the Interview Board, there was no other option except to fill up the posts from the eligible candidates appeared before the Interview Board. 10. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, appellant in W.A. No.70 of 2007, Smt. Amiya Saha, while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and order, would contend that even after the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 3 is considered to be senior to respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge ought not to set aside the appointment letter so far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, as it is the settled position that when there are two posts available for appointment, then only the appointment of junior most candidate can be quashed, but in the instant case, the respondent No. 3 is not junior most admittedly. He further submits that the learned Single Judge should have believed the averments made by the State respondents in their counter-affidavit, inter alia, that the. petitioner refused to accept the interview card stating that she would not appear before the Interview Board, which would be evident from Annexure 2 to the reply submitted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition, i.e., a letter written by one A.K. Murasingh, the Chief Social Education Organizer, District Inspectorate of Social Education, Kumarghat, North Tripura. He also submits that the learned Single Judge should not have passed the impugned judgment and order that the writ petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of School Mother, as the eligibility has to be decided only by the Interview Board, not by the court as the court has no expertise. According to Mr. Deb, being the service of interview card upon the writ petitioner is a disputed fact, it was the duty of the court to ask the State respondents to file an affidavit to that extent or to ask the petitioner to make the said A.K. Murasingh, the Chief Social Education Organizer a party in the writ proceedings. 11. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant respondent No.4 echoed in the same line of Mr. Deb. Supporting the contention of Mr. 11. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant respondent No.4 echoed in the same line of Mr. Deb. Supporting the contention of Mr. Deb, he also submits that the whole case is based on disputed facts and the learned Single Judge was wrong in deciding a disputed fact in the writ jurisdiction. 12. Mr. A.K. Deb, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge would contend that admittedly the petitioner is senior to the appellant respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Anganwadi worker and she is also eligible to be considered for the post of School Mother within the 15% quota meant for them. He further contends that admittedly seniority is the criteria for filling up the post of School Mother from amongst the Anganwadi workers by the respondent authority, but the respondent authority without providing any opportunity to the writ petitioner appointed the appellant respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of School Mother and thus violated the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He again contends that the petitioner by way of filing the rejoinder affidavit denied the allegations made by the State respondents in their reply to the extent that the petitioner was served interview card and she refused to accept the same and also declined to appear before the Interview Board and that contentions of the petitioner had not been denied by the State respondents by way of filing affidavit. Another contention of the learned counsel is that the appellant Smt. Amiya Saha and Smt. Tapati Deb, the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, even after receipt of notice did not contest the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, now they have no right to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to him, a judgment cannot be challenged in absence of raising any question before the learned Single Judge. 13. We have given our anxious thought to the submission of the learned counsel of the parties. It appears from the record that, admittedly, the respondent writ petitioner, Samita Saha, is senior to the appellant respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Anganwadi worker and she is also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of School Mother within 15% quota earmarked for the Anganwadi workers based on seniority and eligibility. It appears from the record that, admittedly, the respondent writ petitioner, Samita Saha, is senior to the appellant respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Anganwadi worker and she is also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of School Mother within 15% quota earmarked for the Anganwadi workers based on seniority and eligibility. On proper scrutiny of the Recruitment Rules, we are of the conscious opinion that seniority in the feeder post is the criteria to be followed for appointment in the post of School Mother. Thus, according to us, the writ petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of School Mother. 14. We are also of the further opinion that mere non-impleadment of one A.K. Murashing, the Chief Social Education Organizer, cannot itself be a ground for dismissal of the writ petition when the contentions of the writ petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit that she did not receive the interview card and did not refuse to appear before the Interview Board were not controverted by the State respondents. The said contentions made in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner have been quoted in para 10 of the Impugned judgment. Therefore, the same is not reproduced in this judgment. 15. According to us, the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the appointment letters, dated 8.1.1999, so far as the appellants here, the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, are concerned. At best, the learned Single Judge should have set aside the appointment letter, dated 8.1.1999, so far as the appellant, Smt. Tapati Deb, the respondent No.4 is concerned with a direction that the writ petitioner should be considered for appointment to the post of School Mother prior to the issuance of appointment letters to the appellant respondents 3 and 4. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 18.5.2007, is modified to the extent that the respondent writ petitioner Smt. Samita Saha is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of School Mother maintaining her seniority before the appellants, Smt. Amiya Saha and Smt. Tapati Deb, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, as School Mother. 17. With the aforesaid order, these appeals are disposed of. _____________