JUDGMENT 1. The orders passed by this Court on two occasions have not been complied, as translated copies of Tamil documents have not been placed on record. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to forthwith award five marks for the Articles published by the petitioner for selection to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry subject in the Government Arts & Science Colleges and College of Education and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Chemistry. 3. The respondent invited applications from the candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Government Arts & Science Colleges and College of Education for year 2008 – 2009. As per the advertisement, the process of selection was to be in two stages; (i) The 1st stage being certificate verification; and (ii) The 2nd stage being interview. 4. In the certificate verification process, the maximum marks were 15 for teaching experience, 9 marks for Ph.D. qualification in the relevant subject, and 5 marks for Research Contribution, namely, Books or Articles published before 29.09.2008, relating to the relevant subject. 5. The certificates of the petitioner were verified by the Board of the respondent at Bharathi Women’s College, Broadway, Chennai on 05.03.2009. The petitioner also produced the teaching experience certificates, Ph.D. qualification certificate and also 13 Articles written by petitioner before the Certificate Verification Authorities. 6. The Board of Certificate Verification Authorities informed the petitioner that they awarded 4 marks for the teaching experience and 9 marks for Ph.D. Qualification, whereas for the article published by petitioner, no marks were awarded. 7. The case of petitioner is that the Board ought to have been given 5 marks for the Article published by the petitioner, as the other Boards, which conducted interview at the Presidency College, Nandanam Arts College and Queen Mary’s College, Chennai, had awarded marks for the Articles, which had more than two authors. The petitioner therefore requested the Board to award 5 marks to the petitioner. The petitioner also sent representation dated 09.03.2009 to the respondent for grant of 5 marks for Articles published by her. 8. The petitioner therefore requested the Board to award 5 marks to the petitioner. The petitioner also sent representation dated 09.03.2009 to the respondent for grant of 5 marks for Articles published by her. 8. It is the case of petitioner, that the respondent arbitrarily did not grant 5 marks to the petitioner, though these marks have been awarded for the Articles written by two authors to other candidates, namely, S.Sumathi, Dr.S.Balasubramanian, G.Muthuraman, S.Sridevi, J.Kasthuri, C.J.Magesh, P.Krishnamurthy, Dr.B.Muthukumaran, C.Selvaraju, T.K.Arumugham, P.Vijayakumar, M.Singanan, A.P.Srikanth and Dr.S.Senthilkumar and others. That the petitioner has not impleaded any one as parties, and also has not chosen to challenge the process of selection, being arbitrary or discriminatory. 9. The writ, as framed, is not competent, as this Court cannot issue direction to award particular marks to a candidate, as it is for the expert to see what marks have to be awarded for the Articles published. In case of discrimination, it was open to the petitioner to challenge the process of selection by impleading the selected persons as parties. The petitioner has also not placed on record any rule or procedure, which entitles marks for Articles written by two authors. 10. At the sake repetition, it may be noticed, that grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the petitioner has been discriminated in awarding marks viz-a-viz other candidates, but none of the persons, who is said to have been given marks wrongly, is party to this writ, nor the petitioner has challenged the selection of Lecturers. The petitioner participated in the interview on 10.06.2009, and the petitioner secured 6 marks. The petitioner in total secured 19 marks out of 39 marks. It is not shown, if any person with lesser marks has been selected. 11. The case of petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to additional 5 marks, and that the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community (MBC), where the cut-off marks for selection was 23, therefore, the petitioner would have been selected, if other additional five marks were granted. If this plea is to be accepted, the petitioner was required to challenge the selection of one candidate by making him/her as party. This Court cannot issue directions to appoint beyond advertised posts. 12. The averments in the writ petition itself show, that the cut-off marks were fixed and the selection process is complete, by appointment of selected candidates. 13. If this plea is to be accepted, the petitioner was required to challenge the selection of one candidate by making him/her as party. This Court cannot issue directions to appoint beyond advertised posts. 12. The averments in the writ petition itself show, that the cut-off marks were fixed and the selection process is complete, by appointment of selected candidates. 13. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not challenged the selection process or selection of selected candidates. In absence of selected candidates being before this Court, the relief as claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner. 14. Consequently, the writ petition as framed, being totally misconceived is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.