V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) PURSUANT to a notification at annexure-a, dated 19-7-1993 issued by the Karnataka state road transport corporation inviting applications, the petitioner applied for the post of account supervisor. The petitioner was not selected in the selection list published as per Annexure-H , dated 17-11-1994. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to quash the selection of respondents 3 to 5 and a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him to the post applied for. ( 2 ) THE claim of the petitioner is that since he has studied in rural area, 5% grace marks should be added to the total marks secured by him in the qualifying examination as per the government order dated 15-6- 1994, copy of which is produced as Annexure - j. According to him, if grace marks are added, his total percentage would be more than the percentage of respondents 3 to 5 and he would be entitled for selection to the post. ( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner is mis-conceived. Petitioner applied for the post pursuant to the notification at annexure-a, which is dated 19-7-1993. As on that day the government order dated 3-5-1994 was in force. According to the said Order, rural weightage was limited only to 15 marks. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that applying the said order dated 3-5-1994, 15 additional marks were allotted to the petitioner and his total percentage of marks was 69. 15 and not 72. 20 as claimed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner having been properly considered by applying the relevant government order applicable at that time for giving the benefit of rural weightage, petitioner cannot have any grievance. ( 4 ) PETITIONER would have got 72. 20% if the government order at Annexure - j was applicable. But that was an order issued subsequent to the notification at Annexure-A inviting applications and it was prospective in force. Therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived and untenable. ( 5 ) NO relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition for another reason. The impugned selection was of the year 1994. Therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived and untenable. ( 5 ) NO relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition for another reason. The impugned selection was of the year 1994. Since there is no interim order staying the operation of the said list, respondents 3 to 5 might have been working for the last about six years. Their selection cannot be dfsturbed at this passage of time especially when the petitioner has no right to the post applied for. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .