WP(C) 4301/2004 WP(C)BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA None appears for the petitioner on call. I have heard Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Depart ment, Assam. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting asi de and quashing of the selection/appointment of the respondent No.6 as Siksha Mi tra. According to the petitioner, she having worked under the particular scheme called DPEP which scheme functioned up to June, 2003, is a better candidate for appointment as Siksha Mitra under the new scheme called Assam Sarba Siksha Abhij an Mission. It appears that selection was conducted in which, as per the own adm ission of the petitioner she cold not qualify. The only ground urged in the writ petition is that the petitioner having worked as Sikisha Mitra under the earlie r scheme (DPEP), she is a better candidate for appointment as such under the new scheme. However, it is the respondent No.6, who has been selected and appointed . The petitioner has not annexed the copy of the appointment order issued in fav our of the respondent No.6. Except making a wholesome statement that the selection of the respondent No.6 is illegal and that the petitioner ought to have been selected being an ex perienced person, no other valid ground has been urged. Only on the basis of suc h assertion made by the petitioner, no relief can be granted. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.