WP(C) 457/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R . Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-6 advertisement dated 23.12. 2010, by which amongst others, 30 posts of Junior Assistants have been advertise d. The only ground on which the challenge to the said advertisement has been urg ed in the writ petition is that the petitioner being a selected candidate pursua nt to his selection way back in 1993, without considering his case, the said adv ertisement could not have been issued. From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner has filed the instan t writ petition after 17 years of his purported selection in the year 1993 for t he post of LDA. According to the petitioner, he had been making representation t o the authorities for his appointment but the same did not yield any result. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was selected for appointment a s LDA way back in 1993, the select list in question cannot now be operated after long 17 years. Delay on the part of the petitioner is apparent on the face of i t. Stacking his claim for appointment on the basis of the purported selection in the year 1993, the petitioner cannot stall the process of selection, which has been initiated by the impugned advertisement dated 23.12.2010. Writ petition is dismissed.