JUDGMENT S.C. Varma, J. - The limited dispute involved in these writ petitions is with regard to the debarking of the petitioners, who were candidates for the selection on the post of conductors, in the written examination to be held on 9-4-1989. The respondents had invited applications through advertisement for selection on the post of conductors. The petitioners, who claimed to be eligible candidates, submitted their applications after complying with the required formalities within the stipulated period. The candidature of the petitioners was not accepted as they fell below the minimum criterion prescribed of 50/0 marks in the Intermediate Examination for initial screening of the candidates. 2. The petitioners were aggrieved by this action of the respondents as according to them, since, they fulfilled required eligibility qualification, they were entitled to appear in the written test. 3. The case of the respondents, as set up in the counter-affidavit, was, that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulation, 1981 provides for constitution of selection committee to scrutinise the applications and require eligible candidates to appear in the competitive examination. The selection committee fixed criterion for screening the applicants by prescribing 50/0 minimum qualifying marks in Intermediate examination. the respondents had received about 26,900 applications and they had issued admit cards to 7,074 candidates for appearing in the examination fixed for 9-4-1989. 4. The advertisement inviting applications, filed an annexure-1 to the writ petition, is relevant to be quoted " p;u izfdz;k izkIr izkFkZuk&i=ksa ij vkj{k.k ds dksVs dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, esfjV ds vk/kkj ij Ldzhfuax ds mijkUr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr nh tk;sxhA fyf[kr ijh{kk oLrqfu"B ( vkCtsfDVo) izdkj dh gksxh] ftlesa lkekU; Kku ,oa xf.kr ( izkjfEHkd) ds iz'u gksaxsA fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj fy;k tk;sxkA " 5. Some of the aggrieved candidates filed writ petitions before this Court and obtained directions for the respondents to allow these candidates to appear at the conductors examination scheduled to be held on 9-4-1989 provided they fulfil order conditions prescribed for eligibility in the advertisement. 6. In my opinion, it is not relevant to decide the controversy at this stage as there are very few petitioners and in pursuance of the orders of this court they have already appeared in the examination. 6. In my opinion, it is not relevant to decide the controversy at this stage as there are very few petitioners and in pursuance of the orders of this court they have already appeared in the examination. The result of the candidates, who had appeared in the examination on the basis of the direction of this Court have not been declared by the respondents. Under the circumstances, there appears to be no reason why evaluation of the merit of these candidates be not done by the respondents and their results be declared. 7. The only objection seems to be, as contended by the respondents, that the select list has been prepared of the selected candidates and the select list under Regulation 5 shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalised by the selection committee or till the date the next selection is held whichever may be earlier. 8. This difficulty can be met by putting only those candidates in the select list who have obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate. 9. Considering the aforesaid Regulations and the entire facts of the case, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioners after evaluating their merit on the basis of the examination conducted by them. It is further directed that in case the merit of any of the candidate is found to be higher than the last candidate of the select list prepared by them, these candidates shall also be placed in the select list at the proper place according to their merit. It is expected that such candidates who are placed in the merit list higher to the last selected candidate, shall be absorbed before the next selection is conducted. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. 10 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.