WP(C) 3124/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, by these writ petitions, have claimed appointment pursu ant to the purported select list dated 13.3.2001 prepared by the sub divisional level selection board for appointment to the posts of assistant teachers in ME/L P schools in three different legislative assembly constituencies namely Golukgan j, West Bilasipara and South Salmara in the district of Dhubri. The petitioners have also prayed for similar relief as granted vide judgment and order dated 18. 12.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 4740/2004. I have heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Goswami, learned standing counsel, Education department appearing for the respo ndents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pu rsuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.1996 issued by the authority to fill up 7500 posts of assistant teachers in LP/ME schools, which includes the various po sts in Golukganj, West Bilasipara and South Salmara legislative assembly constit uencies, the petitioners applied and consequently a selection process was undert aken by the sub divisional level selection board and a list was prepared by such board on 13.3.2001. According to the petitioners despite preparation of such li st, where the petitioners’ names appear they were not appointed for the posts fo r which the selection was undertaken. It has also been stated that on 3.12.2010 the authority had issued an order cancelling all the selection process undertake n prior to 1.4.2001 where the select lists have not been published or finalized. The petitioners further contend that since the selection process has been initi ated it must reach the logical conclusion, which has not been done in the instan t cases. According to the petitioners in a similar writ petition being WP(C) 474 0/2004 a Single Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 18.12.2008, afte r noticing the facts, which are similar as that in the present writ petitions, d irected the State authorities to take an appropriate decision vis-à-vis the list prepared by the sub divisional level selection board on 13.3.2001 keeping in vi ew the requirements of the State level empower committee as well as the ban impo sed on appointment and as such the present writ petitions be disposed of in term s of the said judgment and order. The learned standing counsel Education department referring to the affid avit-in-oppositions filed by the Director, which are similar in nature, has subm itted that though the process of selection was undertaken by issuance of adverti sement dated 28.12.1996, no selection list was prepared and published and the pu rported list prepared by the sub divisional level selection board on 13.3.2001 b eing full of mistakes and having prepared on the basis of pick and choose policy , the same was not accepted by the authority. It has also been submitted that th ere was also requirement of approval by the state level empower committee at the relevant point of time apart from the imposition of ban for fresh appointment. The learned standing counsel further submits that since the petitioners have app roached this Court claiming appointment on the basis of the list purportedly pre pared by the sub divisional level selection board on 13.3.2001 after eight years of such list, they are not entitled to the similar relief granted to the petiti oners in WP(C) No. 4740/2004 who approached this Court in the year 2004 i.e. imm ediately after the notification dated 3.12.2003 was issued by the authority canc elling all the selection process initiated prior to 1.4.2001 wherein no final li st was published. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appeari ng parties and also perused the materials on records. The process for filling up 7500 posts of assistant teachers in different LP/ME schools was initiated by issuing the advertisement on 28.12.1996 and purs uant to which the interview of various candidates including the present petition ers were conducted. According to the petitioners the list was, thereafter, prepa red on 13.3.2001 by the sub divisional level selection board, preparation of whi ch has also not been disputed by the Director in the affidavit-in-opposition fil ed. The Director, however, contends that the list prepared by such board was not in accordance to the merit but by adopting pick and choose policy. It also appe ars that one Pradip Kumar Kar had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 4740/2004 c laiming appointment pursuant to the select list prepared by the board on 13.3.20 01 in respect of another legislative assembly constituency namely Bilasipara eas t. The said writ petition was filed immediately after issuance of the notificati on dated 3.12.2003 whereby and whereunder the authority had cancelled all the se lection process initiated prior to 1.4.2001 where there was no final publication of the select list. The petitioners have waited for more than 8 years from the date of prepa ration of such list by the sub divisional level selection board on 13.3.2001. Th ey have slept over their right, if any, for long period of 8 years and have appr oached this Court in 2009 claiming appointment on the basis of the list prepared by the board on 13.3.2001. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed in the present writ petitions, the writ petitions being hit by th e principle of delay and laches. In view of the above, no direction as sought for in the present writ pet itions can be granted. Hence the writ petitions are dismissed.