WP(C) 4438/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . Heard Mrs. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. R.Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being son of a retired Upper Division Assistant of the school is required to be appointed against the quota earmarked for appointment of sons and daughters of retired teachers. Altho ugh the particular circular does not mention about the retired Lower Division As sistant or Upper Division Assistant, but Mrs. Deka, learned counsel for the peti tioner submits that taking the spirit of the circular, same should also be appli cable to the retired office staff of the school. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a selected candidate for appointment. The quota earmarked for sons and daughters of retired teachers and/or employees is meant for a selected candidate and to apply the said quota, the incumbent wil l have to be a selected candidate, which the petitioner is not. In view of the above, merely because the petitioner is the son of retire d U.D.A. cannot claim automatic recruitment dehorse the recruitment rules. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the writ pet ition is dismissed.