WP(C) 3977/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel of the petitioners as well as Mr. M.R. P athak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to t he respondents to appoint them as L.P. School teachers pursuant to the advertise ment issued in 1996 and the purported selection conducted thereafter. The petiti oners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.177/2001 and the said writ petition was disposed of with the following :- Upon hearing the learned counsels for both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation and direction to the respondent No.2 & 3 to examine and verify whether there is any proper and valid select list as claimed by the petit ioners and whether the petitioners are selected candidates as claimed and if it is found that the petitioners are selected candidates and the select list is sti ll valid, the respondents may act upon the same in accordance with the select li st From the above, what is seen is that the respondents were to verify as to whethe r there is any valid select list, as claimed by the petitioners and also as to w hether there were selected candidates. Another aspect of the matter to be looked into was as to whether the select list was still valid or not. From the materials on record, it appears that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, N agaon, Assam vide the letter dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure-’F’ to the writ petition) furnished report to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam in respect of t he claim of the petitioners. As per the said report, due to irregular attendance of the Chairman of the Advisory Board, the Chairperson of the Interview Board c ould not submit the list to the Advisory Board for necessary action. In fact, th ere was no select list submitted by the Interview Board and thus, there is no qu estion of approval of the same. From the report, what is seen is that eventuall y, the then Chairman of the State Advisory Board submitted a list with a directi on to appoint the candidates named therein. Such a course of action was adopted without any selection, which is well reflected in the impugned order dated 30.1. 2009 (Annexure-G to the writ petition). As per the aforesaid order of this Court , the authorities were required to verify as to whether the petitioners were dul y selected and also as to whether the select list was validly drawn or not. When it is found that there was mockery in the name of selection, the authorities pa ssed the impugned order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) refusi ng to appoint the petitioners. I see no reason to interfere with the same. There is another aspect of the matter. The advertisement was issued 14 years ba ck (1996) and thus, there is no question of making any appointment pursuant to t he said advertisement. Even if any select list was drawn, same has long expired . In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordin gly, the writ petition is dismissed.