WP(C) 158/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the writ ten examination results for the post of Leprosy Injectors as published vide Anne xure-D notice dated 4.1.2011. The petitioners were aspirants for the said post o f Leprosy Injector and duly appeared in the written examination, but could not q ualify. The only ground urged in the writ petition is that since the petitioners are trained personnel, the authority ought to have considered their experience in terms of the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in WP(C) No.6611/2010. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had prayed for some amount of weightage for the training already they have undergone in the year 1998. The writ petition was di sposed of by order dated 20.12.2010 with the following observation :- In this view of the matter, this petition is closed with the observation that i n case the official respondents consider the training undertaken by the petition ers to be relevant for the quality of the service expected of the Leprosy Inject or to be newly recruited, they would accord due weightage thereto vis a vis the concerned candidates. As no such indication of preference is discernible in the advertisement, no direction as such has been issued. It is expected that, if the respondent authorities feel that the training said to have been undertaken by t he petitioners would add to the excellence in performance in the post involved, there is no reason as to why they would ignore or disregard the same. The petiti on stands disposed in the above terms. No costs. On perusal of the said order, what is seen is that there is no direction as such to provide any weightage to the petitioners for the training they have undertaken. Even otherwise also, giving weightage for training will come only if they could clear the written examination. There is no question of giving any we ightage in the written examination itself. Further, merely because the petitione rs had undergone one month’s training wayback in 1998, they cannot say that they are the preferential candidates over the others irrespective of their performan ce in the written examination and that they must be selected. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and ac cordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.