C.R. Sarma, J.

1. The appointment of the respondent No. 5 as the Assistant Teacher of the Anath Ashram L.P. School (hereinafter referred as the "school') against the retirement vacancy of Sri Krishna Bashak, has been challenged in this writ petition, by the petitioners. On 10.12.2009, an advertisement was made by the respondent No. 4, inviting candidature from qualified persons for a post of Assistant Teacher of the School. The last date for submission of application was 16.12.2009. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners, the respondent No. 5 and others applied. This process was initiated to fill up the anticipated retirement vacancy of Sri Ranjit Kr. Deb, who was due to retire on 01.03.2010.

2. The Managing Committee of the School, in its meeting, held on 07.03.2010, constituted a Selection Committee for selecting the candidates and by its resolution, dated 25.04.2010, the Managing Committee of the School, i.e. the respondent No. 4, after receipt of the report of the Selection Committee, decided to call, those candidates, who have secured 30% and above marks in written examination, for oral interview and constituted an Interview Board of five members, for holding the oral interview. The Board, accordingly, after holding oral interview, prepared a penal of three candidates and placed the same before the respondent No. 4. The petitioners failed to qualify for the oral interview.

3. The respondent No. 4, on 19.09.2010, while accepting the penal of three candidates, which included the respondent No. 5 as the second selected candidate, in order of merit, took a decision to keep the said penal valid for one year, on the ground that another retirement vacancy was expected soon. Accordingly, the committee decided to move the Education Department seeking approval for appointment against two retirement vacancies.

4. Upon receipt of the approval, Smti Rinapaul, who stood first, in order of merit, was appointed against, the retirement vacancy of Sri Ranjit Kr. Deb and the respondent No. 5, who stood second in order of merit was appointed against the retirement vacancy of Sri Krishna Basak. As the said vacancy of Sri Krishna Basak was filled up by appointing the respondent No. 5, the petitioners have challenged her appointment, on the ground that the post was filled up without advertisement, inasmuch as the selection was made on the basis of the advertisement dated 10.12.2009, which was made for one post. Prayer has been made, in this writ petition, for cancellation of the said appointment and pass order for fresh advertisement.

5. The respondent No. 4 contested the petitioners' case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In its affidavit-in-opposition, the contesting respondent No. 4, stated, that the petitioners obtained 27 and 28 marks respectively in all the four papers out of 100 marks and as such they, having failed to obtain the qualifying marks 30 in written test, were not called for interview, that the Selection Committee selected 3 (three) candidates, including the respondent No. 5 (second), in order of merit, that the Managing Committee, i.e. respondent No. 4, as per prevailing, practice, decided to fill up another expected vacancy (retirement vacancy) arising due to retirement of Smti Krishna Basak w.e.f. 31.01.2011 and accordingly moved the Government for approval. It has also been averred that the School, being a Government aided school, could not afford to advertise the posts time and again. The contesting respondent denied the allegations, that by appointing the respondent No. 5, the petitioners were deprived of their right to participate in the selection process, inasmuch as they, after participating in the selection process, failed to qualify for selection. It has also been contended by the respondent No. 4 that no discrimination or favoritism has been done in appointing the respondent No. 5 and that the father of the respondent No. 5, who was the Head Master of the School, did not participate in the se