D. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) 1. Heard counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE controversy involved in this bunch writ petitions is identical in nature and therefore they are being disposed off by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the writ petition no. 53291 of 1999 Santosh Kumar srivastava Vs. State of U. P. and others is being treated with the consent of the parties as the leading case. ( 3 ) IN pursuance of advertisement issued in 1997 inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Excise Constable in the Excise Department, the petitioners submitted their respective applications to their respective deputy Excise Commissioner. An alleged selection was held at the level of deputy Excise Commissioner where physical measurement of candidates was also taken and in pursuance thereof the petitioners were issued appointment letters. ( 4 ) HAVING received serious complaints with regard to the recruitment process especially in respect to the physical measurement of the candidates selected, a direction was issued to the Excise Commissioner to hold fresh examination of the candidates in pursuance of which notices were issued for termination of their services and also for fresh medical examination. Subsequently, their services were terminated which has resulted in the filing of the present writ petitions. ( 5 ) A large of number of writ petitions were allowed by Learned Single Judges of this Court which was challenged before a Division Bench in Special appeals. The Division Bench, after consolidating all the Special Appeals, heard them together, and, in the leading case of State of U. P. and others vs. Param Hansh Singh (Special Appeal No. 91 of 2000) considered all the arguments which are being raised presently, allowed the Special Appeal vide judgment dated 23. 5. 2001, setting aside the judgment of the Learned single Judges. The aforesaid judgment applies on all force to the present bunch also. ( 6 ) THE only argument now raised is that the petitioners may be permitted to appear again before Medical Board. This contention cannot be accepted as no rules or regulations have been pointed out by which the petitioners are entitled to a second attempt on the strength of the same advertisement. ( 6 ) THE only argument now raised is that the petitioners may be permitted to appear again before Medical Board. This contention cannot be accepted as no rules or regulations have been pointed out by which the petitioners are entitled to a second attempt on the strength of the same advertisement. Apart from that, these petitions have remained pending for 6 to 7 years and now allowing them to appear before Medical Board would not only be arbitrary but cumbersome to the State Authority. For the reasons given above and the reasons given in the case of State of u. P. and others Vs. Param Hansh Singh (Special Appeal No. 92 of 2000), all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. . .