JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue appointment order for the post of Librarian (Village Librarian) on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2013, in view of interview attended by the petitioner on 19.12.2012. 2. The petitioner completed X standard in March 1987. The petitioner also qualified High Secondary in March 1989 and qualified the Certificate Course in Library and Information Science from the University of Madras in the year 1994. 3. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community and is from a poor family. The petitioner got her qualification registered with the District Employment Office vide Registration No.703/94 in the year 1994. The registration was renewed by periodic renewal. 4. It is submitted that in the year 1998, 158 vacancies of Village Librarian were advertised. The petitioner participated in the selection process. But, she was not selected. 5. On 07.05.2005, the petitioner was again called for interview and attended the interview, but the respondents did not publish the result. 6. The petitioner was last called for the interview on 19.12.2012, for which the petitioner appeared with all necessary documents, but she did not receive any communication from the respondents nor any appointment letter was issued to her, though she is 41 years now. 7. The petitioner's case is that she is not aware of the outcome of the interview attended by her, therefore, she filed a representation. 8. On the averments referred to above, the petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Librarian. 9. The relief as claimed cannot be granted by this Court as this Court cannot issue direction to the State Government to appoint any person, as the petitioner has only right of consideration for the post. 10. It is admitted case of the petitioner that she was considered for appointment. It is for the petitioner to challenge the selection when finalised, if it is not in accordance with law, or if there is any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or the rules and regulations. The petitioner can also challenge the selection process if it was not fair of suffered from arbitrariness. 11. It is for the petitioner to challenge the selection when finalised, if it is not in accordance with law, or if there is any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or the rules and regulations. The petitioner can also challenge the selection process if it was not fair of suffered from arbitrariness. 11. Merely on the basis of the representation, the petitioner cannot seek direction of this Court for appointment to the post of librarian. No merit. 12. Dismissed. No costs. 13. However, this order shall not deter the petitioner to challenge the process of selection, if it was not fair and proper.