JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- " i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the selection of respondents No.3 to 6 as lecturers (school cadre) Biology may be quashed and set aside by further quashing the result (Annexure P-7) declared by the respondents whereby the respondents No.3 to 6 have been selected. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to declare the petitioner selected in the selection process to the post of Lecturer (school cadre) Biology on the basis of her academic qualification". 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that process stood initiated by the respondents-State to fill up certain posts in the Education Department through Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh In this regard, an advertisement was issued i.e. advertisement No.13 of 2008, dated 20.09.2008 (Annexure R-3/1), appended with the reply of respondent No.3. As per this advertisement, the posts of Lecturers, School Cadre were advertised, which were to be filled up on contract basis. That posts were advertised in six fields namely Math's, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Commerce and Sanskrit. The essential qualification for a candidate to be eligible for consideration for appointment against the posts in issue was Master's Degree in the relevant subjects with Bachelor of Education or its equivalent or two years integrated M.Sc, B.Ed. course or its equivalent. Petitioner being eligible as per the advertisement, applied for being considered for appointment against the post of Biology under the General (un-reserved) quota. For this particular category, as per the advertisement in issue, 14 posts were available. The mode of selection provided in the advertisement for appointment to the post of Lecturer, School Cadre was:- (a) Objective type screening test consisting Syllabus concerned subject of Master Degree= 150 marks, General Knowledge= 50 marks, (b) Interview of those who qualify Objective Type screening test= 30 marks. 3. As the petitioner was successful in the screening test/written test, which was held by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, she was invited for the personal interview vide Annexure P-6, for 20.05.2010. 4. Respondent No.2, vide Press Note, Annexure P-7, declared the result. The Roll Number of the petitioner was not figuring in the result so declared by respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.2, vide Press Note, Annexure P-7, declared the result. The Roll Number of the petitioner was not figuring in the result so declared by respondent No.2. 5. The case of the petitioner is that after declaration of the said result, when she enquired into the matter, she came to know that though she had also scored 159 marks in all i.e. total marks inclusive of screening test as well as written test, she was not offered appointment, whereas four other candidates were reflected in the list of successful candidates as selected candidates, who had also scored 159 marks. It is in this background, the petition stood filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 6. The reply which has been filed to the writ petition by respondents No.1 and 2 is to the effect that though there is no dispute that four candidates who had scored 159 marks, stood declared as selected candidates for appointment against the post of Lecturer (Biology) and despite the fact that the petitioner had also scored 159 marks, her name did not find mention in the list of selected candidates, but this was for the reason that as per the policy of the Government on the issue (which stands appended with the reply filed by respondent No.2), in such like situations, where there is tie of marks between several candidates, then the merit of the candidate is determined in favour of a candidate who is elder in age and if there is still a tie, then a candidate who has secured more marks in written or screening test as the case may be, shall be ranked senior to the one who got lessor marks. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the reply. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the selected candidates are elder to the petitioner in age. In such like situations, there being in-vogue a practice being followed by the Government to the effect that in the event of tie, the candidate elder in age is to be preferred to a candidate who is younger in age, there is nothing wrong with the act of the respondent offering appointment or declaring those candidates as successful candidates, who were elder to the petitioner in age. 9. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed that the selection of the private respondent is bad as said candidate scored less marks than the petitioner in the interview. Learned counsel has argued that screening test was only for the purpose of screening candidates who were invited for interview and once they stood invited for the purpose of interview, then the marks in the screening test could not have been added for adjudging the merit of the candidate. 10. In my considered view, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not has any merit in the facts of this case. This is for the reason that the advertisement in issue nowhere prescribed that the marks to be obtained by a candidate in the screening test were not to be taken into consideration to determine the final merit and that final merit would be determined only on the basis of interview. 11. Otherwise also, it is settled law that personal interview/ viva-voce should not ordinarily be the sole basis for making recruitments to a public post and the marks of personal interview/viva-voce at the most can be to the extent of 25/30%o of the total. 12. In this case, a candidate was subjected to an objective screening test, which comprised of 200 marks and the interview was only of 30 marks. Therefore, the criteria which stood adopted by respondent No.2 for selecting a candidate is a transparent criteria and as already stated hereinabove, it was nowhere mentioned in the advertisement that the marks obtained by a candidate in the screening test were not to be taken into consideration to determine the final merit. 13. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim Order, if any, stands vacated.