V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by contending therein that she has performed and discharged duties as Assistant Teacher under three-language formula, as such in the matter of selection for Special BTC Course-2008, preference should also be extended to such candidates, in the same way and manner, as is extended in the case of Shikshamitra. Claim set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted by any means, inasmuch as Policy Makers in their wisdom have chosen to provide 10% seats to the candidates coming from the category of such Shikshamitra, who have completed three years' service as such, and have been currently performing and discharging duties as Shikshamitra. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government N.C.T. Delhi, J.T. 2003 (2) SC 453 has taken the view that it is within the domain of the recruiting authority to evolve policy of recruitment and decide the source from which recruitment is to be made. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs. Chairman, U.P. S.C., AIR 2007 SC 254, has taken the view that it is the statutory authority alone, which is entitled to frame Rules as well as prescribed qualification, and the courts have no authority to prescribe the qualification or supplant or supplement the same. Inevitable conclusion is that Framers of the Scheme are presumed to be aware of each and every fact, including the fact that the candidates with all kinds of qualifications are available and it is well within their domain to evolve policy of recruitment and decide the source from which recruitment is to be made. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Gopi Nath, AIR 2006SC 651, has taken the view that the policy decision must be left with the Government, as it alone can decide as to which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles in the matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by Government. So long as infringement of fundamental right is not there, the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government, court cannot interfere even if second view is possible from that of Government, it is not permissible. Consequently, in the present case once such policy decision has been taken, chalking out the source from which recruitment is to be made, and therein the candidates unlike the petitioner are out the zone of eligibility criteria, then in this background, no direction can be issued to the State Government for including or clubbing another set of resource of recruitment. Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.;