D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) MOALLIM-E-URDU Prashikstiit Berojgar Sangh through its Executive Member Smt. Rana Rajia and others have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief : " (i) Issue an writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of every member of the petitioners association for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School run by the respondent and in view of the government order dated 1. 9. 1999 and 13. 9. 1994 and Judgment dated 28. 8. 1998 and 11. 5. 1999 passed by this Honble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 30711 of 1997 and 19324 of 1999 respectively and accordingly appoint and pay them full regular salary since the date of joining of their duties by deciding their representation dated 20. 12. 1999. (ii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. " ( 2 ) RELYING on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19324 of 1999 disposed of on May 11, 1999 ; the counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner should be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher since their degree or diploma moallim-E-Urdu training certificate is equivalent to B. T. C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, similarly situated persons are already given relief and as such they should also be given similar relief. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Shri B. D. Tripathi submits that the petitioners have obtained the said degree some times in 1998. They cannot get any benefit out of the said diploma because of the circular dated August 11, 1997 by which the equivalence of the said degree or diploma with B. T. C. is withdrawn by the Government. He also contends that the advertisement was issued in 1998. The petitioner is claiming after two years. Therefore, no relief could be granted at this stage. ( 4 ) THE next contention is that the petition has been sought to be moved in a representative capacity for an indefinite cause of action without any particulars being disclosed and as such the writ petition cannot be maintained. The petitioner is claiming after two years. Therefore, no relief could be granted at this stage. ( 4 ) THE next contention is that the petition has been sought to be moved in a representative capacity for an indefinite cause of action without any particulars being disclosed and as such the writ petition cannot be maintained. ( 5 ) I have heard both the counsel at length- it appears that the petition has admittedly been moved in representative capacity seeking relief in similar situation. In fact public interest litigation raising general proposition cannot be maintained unless the candidates come within the perview of little Indians incapable of espousing their cause. Be that as it may, even if the petition could be maintained, still then it appears that the petition have been moved after two years from the date of the advertisement. Such relief cannot be given after lapse of two years. ( 6 ) THEN again recognition has since been withdrawn in 1997, therefore, no relief could be granted. There is nothing to disclose as to whether the persons had obtained the degree or diploma before 1997. The decision in Writ Petition No. 19324 of 1999 deals with cases of persons who had obtained such diploma before September 6, 1997 and that too in respect of appointment in the post of teachers in Urdu. In the present case, the advertisement is in respect of general teachers and not in respect of Urdu. Therefore, even on the basis of the said Judgment when the matter has been confined to the question of teaching of Urdu, there cannot be any grievance in respect of recruitment of teachers in general posts. ( 7 ) THE counsel for the respondent has also pointed out from paragraph 8 that the applications were submitted by hand whereas advertisement prescribes that only those applications which were submitted through registered post would only be accepted. On that account also by reason of the statement made in paragraph 8. the petitioners cannot claim any cause of action to maintain this writ petition. That apart, there is nothing to show that the applications were so submitted. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. .