JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Petitioners, in this writ petition, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint them to the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure 1 dated 7th August, 1988. 2. Both the petitioners argued their case in person. The petitioners claim that an advertisement was published in the year 1988 seeking application to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Both these petitioners applied through the Employment Exchange. It is their case that the appointment process was completed only in the year 2001, but, these petitioners were not appointed. Their grievance is that applications were taken from different sources, i.e. through Employment Exchange, through Registered Post. They alleged that though these two modes were preferred modes, as per the advertisement, but, they alleged that a large number of candidates deposited their applications directly in the Offices, which were also considered by the respondents. They submit that under the Right to Information Act, they received information that there are no records available with the respondents, which would suggest how many and whose applications were sent through registered post, thus, they concluded that large number of applications were directly deposited in the Office, which was impermissible, thus, the entire selection process is bad since the applications sent through Employment Exchange and through Registered Post only should have been considered as per Clause 5 and 11 of the advertisement. They submit that the entire process should be declared illegal and the petitioners be appointed. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners are seeking appointment pursuant to an advertisement of 1988. The process was completed in 2001 and the petitioners have filed this writ petition in the year 2018, i.e. after 17 years of completion of the process, thus, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 4. Petitioners, who argued their case, in person, were heard at length and the counsel for the respondents was also heard. I have gone through the pleadings also. 5. An advertisement was published on 7th August, 1988 to fill up the post of Matric Trained Teachers. As per Clause 5 of the said advertisement, candidates were to be sponsored by Employment Exchange and as per Clause 11, the applications can also be sent directly through registered post. I have gone through the pleadings also. 5. An advertisement was published on 7th August, 1988 to fill up the post of Matric Trained Teachers. As per Clause 5 of the said advertisement, candidates were to be sponsored by Employment Exchange and as per Clause 11, the applications can also be sent directly through registered post. After a long delay, the appointment process got completed in the year 2001, but, since the petitioners were not appointed, they approached this Court in 2018. The petitioners claim that the applications sent through the Employment Exchange and through Registered Post only should have been considered, but, a large number of candidates directly applied in the office of the respondents, which is an illegality. 6. After going through the records, I find that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. Petitioners are merely assuming that since under the Right to Information Act, respondents had informed that there were no documents to suggest as to how many candidates had submitted their applications through registered post, the respondents have accepted applications, which were deposited directly in the Office. This apprehension is ill founded, without any basis and merely an allegation and/or aspersion of the petitioners, which cannot be looked into. 7. Petitioners could not put forth any other ground to suggest that what were the illegalities or irregularities in the appointment process. Furthermore, they have approached this Court after 18 years of completion of the process. In course of argument, this Court had also asked both the petitioners about their respective age. Petitioner No. 1 stated that he is 62 years old and the petitioner No. 2 stated that he has crossed 60 years of age. Be it noted that the age of superannuation of Government Teachers, as submitted by the counsel for the State, is 60 years. Thus, admittedly, petitioners have now crossed the age of superannuation. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. At this stage, petitioners submit that they need to be compensated as there was grave illegality in the selection process and they were kept waiting for a considerable long period. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess compensation. Moreso, for seeking compensation, there has to be pleadings coupled with evidence. 9. At this stage, petitioners submit that they need to be compensated as there was grave illegality in the selection process and they were kept waiting for a considerable long period. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess compensation. Moreso, for seeking compensation, there has to be pleadings coupled with evidence. In this case, both the pleadings and the evidence to attract or invoke an order of compensation is missing. Further, to seek any compensation, petitioners have to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not before this Court. Thus, this Court cannot delve into the aspect of compensation also. If the petitioners can make out a case for compensation, they will be at liberty to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate application.