JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner; learned Advocate General assisted by learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A. S.Lodh for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S.M.Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 7, 10, 23 to 27, 41, 42 and 44 to 47. No representation on behalf of other respondents. 2. The simple case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 by notification dated 12.07.2006 invited application from eligible candidates for filling up of 1260 nos. of posts of Post Graduate Teachers under the School Education Department of the Government of Tripura and pursuant to that advertisement the petitioner being an eligible candidate with requisite qualification made application for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Philosophy. It is the case of the petitioner that she passed B.A (Honours in Philosophy) and secured first class and also stood second position in the University. She also stated that she has done Masters Degree in Philosophy and secured 62.25% marks and secured first position in the Tripura University. She was awarded Gold Medal from the University. 3. Pursuant to the said advertisement, it is an admitted position that an Interview Board was constituted consisting of respondent Nos. 49 to 53 and that Interview Board conducted oral interview for selection of candidates and the petitioner also participated in the interview on receipt of a call letter dated 20.11.2006. Subsequent to that interview process, offer of appointment of Post Graduate Teachers were issued by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner found that she was not selected whereas the candidates, much inferior to her, both in terms of marks secured in the graduation and postgraduation, were selected and further the candidates who secured the graduation and postgraduation long after her were also selected. She approached the office of respondent No.2 under RTI Act for supplying her certain information in details in respect of the select list etc. and accordingly the SPIO of the office of respondent No.2 supplied her certain information which includes a select list of the 119 candidates of “Philosophy” subject. In the meantime, the persons in Sl. No.3 to 48 were given offer. 4. and accordingly the SPIO of the office of respondent No.2 supplied her certain information which includes a select list of the 119 candidates of “Philosophy” subject. In the meantime, the persons in Sl. No.3 to 48 were given offer. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Interview Board did not follow the employment policy and the guidelines issued by the department for selection of candidates and as a result, less meritorious candidates were selected and neither the criteria of merit cum seniority, nor the criteria of need were strictly followed at the time of selection of candidates. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 48 as Post Graduate Teachers and in the alternative, prayed for appointing her as Post Graduate Teacher from the date the respondent Nos. 3 to 48 were appointed. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing counter affidavit contended that the petitioner consciously participated in the selection process. The Interview Board was duly constituted with experts from the department and they conducted the interview following the guidelines and the employment policy and thereafter submitted a select list to the Government and according to that selection, respondent Nos. 3 to 48 were given the offer of appointment. The petitioner did not challenge the employment policy or the guidelines issued time to time for conducting the interview and when she became unsuccessful, she came before this Court to challenge the selection process which cannot be entertained and the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Some of the private respondents submitted counter affidavit stating that they were properly selected and their appointment should not be disturbed. 7. Respondent Nos. 49 to 53 were the members of the Interview Board and they by filing a counter affidavit adopted the counter submitted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee at the conclusion of his argument has submitted that respondent Nos. 3 to 48 were appointed long ago and if their selection and appointment are not struck down by this Court, at least the appointment of the petitioner may be considered by the respondents since both in respect of merit and seniority, which were the criteria for selection, the petitioner was in better position than that of most of the selected candidates. So, her case should be considered. 9. So, her case should be considered. 9. Learned Advocate General has submitted that according to law the petitioner while once participated in the selection process now cannot turnaround the process of selection but if she has any grievance, the State-respondents may look into it as to whether she was practically discriminated or not. 10. I have meticulously gone through Annexure 10 to the writ petition which consists of the list of candidates appeared in the Interview Board out of whom the respondent Nos. 3 to 48 were given offer and ultimately were appointed as P.G teacher in ‘Philosophy’ subject. It is quite clear to me that most of these candidates secured less mark than the petitioner as well as cleared their bachelor degree and master’s degree after the petitioner. The Interview Board was constituted to select the best candidates and the guidelines issued were to give priorities to merit as well as seniority. Merit means the marks secured in the examination i.e. bachelor degree, master’s degree and B.Ed degree etc. and seniority means the year of passing. So, if those criteria were rightly taken to consideration, the petitioner would get consideration for selection. The Interview Board does not appear to have given any marks after oral interview of the candidates. So, taking into consideration Annexure 10 in its entirety, I think it proper to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the selection of successful candidates, taking into account the merit and the seniority i.e. year of passing are concerned. The State respondents i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should give effective consideration of the case of the petitioner within 45(forty five) days from today and inform the petitioner about the decision taken by them on the issue, immediately after taking the decision. 11. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again if not satisfied with the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 12. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.