WP(C) 3924/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr . B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Health Department. I have also heard Mr. C . Baruha, learned Standing counsel, APSC. By means of this writ petition, the two petitioners have prayed for a di rection to the respondents to hold a fresh selection in respect of the advertise ment dated 17.06.2008 by which candidatures were invited for the post of Lecture r in Homeopathy for which interview is fixed on 12.08.2011. According to the pet itioners, the proposed selection is without taking note of the Annexure-4 letter dated 26.05.2005 addressed to the Principal, All Homeopathic Medical Colleges i n India by the Central Council of Homeopathy regarding induction of Post Graduat e Degree holder as Lecturers. The petitioners are Post Graduate Degree holders. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petit ioner No. 1 obtained Post Graduate degree in the year 2009, the petitioner No. 2 obtained the same in the year 2011. In view of the above, both the petitioners were not eligible to offer th eir candidature in terms of the advertisement dated 07.06.2008 in respect of wh ich a number of writ petitions had been filed. The issue in these writ petition s was as to whether the required four years experience should be counted from th e initial date of registration or should be counted from the date of obtaining t he degree. The issue has been resolved by the judgment and order dated 24.04.201 1 passed in a batch of writ petitions, first one being W.P.(C) No. 1479/2010 (Dr . Champak Kumar Talukdar and 26 others vs. Assam Public Service Commission and o rs.) In terms of the said judgment and order, the APSC has now fixed the date of interview on 12.08.2011. It is at this stage, the instant writ petition has been filed by the two ineligible candidates who obtained their Post Graduate deg ree only in the year 2009 and 2011. Admittedly the two petitioners do not posses s the required four years experience from the date of registration. On the other hand, they claim preference being Post Graduate degree holders irrespective of the fact that the advertisement was issued in the year 2008 and that they obtain ed the Post Graduate Degree in the year 2009 and 2011. If the petitioners are not eligible in terms of the advertisement issue d in the year 2008 (17.06.2008), they cannot call in question the said advertise ment and the selection thereto. It appears that the writ petition has been filed only to frustrate the s election at the behest of some others who could not succeed in the earlier round of litigation. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.