( 1 ) HEARD both sides. Leave granted. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 7, in the present case, had applied for appointment against 100 vacant posts of Operators and 70 vacant posts of Assistant operators, pursuant to an advertisement/employment notice issued on 15-12- 1986. According to Respondents 1-7, they qualified in the written test and viva voce test and were on the merit list at serial numbers lower than 23 onwards. Their exact position on the merit list is not on record. ( 3 ) THE employment notice of 1986 was cancelled by the appellant and a fresh advertisement was issued on 15-11-1992 for 50 vacant posts of operators. In respect of this fresh advertisement, some other candidates who had been selected under the advertisement of 1986 and were higher on the merit list than the present respondents, had filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the earlier notice. In this writ petition, the High Court passed certain orders directing inter alia, that 50% of the posts freshly advertised should be filled up by the petitioners before it who had been selected under the 1986 advertisement. The balance 50% should be filled up by persons selected under the 1992 advertisement. Respondents 1-7 were not parties to that petition nor had they taken any steps to challenge the cancellation of the previous advertisement of 1986. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the directions given in the said writ petition at the instance of the other selected candidates who were higher on the merit list than respondents 1-7, the appellants notified 22 candidates selected under the advertisement notice of 1986. However, only four candidates out of the 1986 list of 22 candidates joined. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1-7 filed a writ petition for the first time in 1995 claiming that 18 posts which were not filled from the 1986 list should be given to them. This is the first time that these respondents have moved the High Court claiming any of the posts advertised under the employment notice of 1992 on the basis of their selection in 1986. We fail to see how after a lapse of more then ten years, such a writ petition could have been maintained. We do not see any legal right in Respondents 1-7 to claim these posts. The direction in the earlier writ petition has no application to these respondents. We fail to see how after a lapse of more then ten years, such a writ petition could have been maintained. We do not see any legal right in Respondents 1-7 to claim these posts. The direction in the earlier writ petition has no application to these respondents. ( 6 ) THE appeals are, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders of the high Court are set aside. CWICs Nos. 3732 and 9213 of 1995 are dismissed.