1. By means of this writ petition filed in the year 2005, the two petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Teacher of MV Schools on the basis of the select list purportedly prepared in 1993 (17.6.1993). Thus, the prayer for appointment made in this writ petition is long after 12 years of the preparation of the select list. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, an advertisement was issued in 1992 inviting applications to fill up the posts of LP/MV school teachers under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Inspector of School?, Bilashipara. According to the petitioners they appeared in the selection and their names were included in the select list prepared on 17.6.1993. Further statement made in the writ petition is that the select list was cancelled by the Government on 1993 and being aggrieved by such cancellation certain writ petitions being Civil Rule No. 1962/1993 and Civil Rule No. 2411/1996 were filed. According to the petitioners, cancellation of the select list was held to be illegal by this court. However, copy of the order passed by this court in the aforesaid civil rules, has not been annexed to the writ petition. 3. The petitioners have placed reliance on the Anenxue-1 judgment and order dated 28.6.2002 passed by this court in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3884/2002 (Hasina Banu v. State of Assam & Ors.). By the said judgment and order a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner involved in the writ petition for appointment as LP school teacher, if her stand that the select list had been operative in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was found tc be correct. 4. From the aforesaid direction, it will be seen that there was no direction as such for appointment of the petitioners involved in the writ petition. Further the claim of thr petitioner in that case was for appointment as LP school teacher unlike the present petitioners, who claim appointment as MV school teachers. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by this court on 9.5.2002 in WP(C) No. 2855/2002 to the same effect. However, the said order was also in respect of appointment of LP school teachers. The order dated 7.6.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 6296/1999, on which the petitioners have place reliance, was also to the same effect. 5. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by this court on 9.5.2002 in WP(C) No. 2855/2002 to the same effect. However, the said order was also in respect of appointment of LP school teachers. The order dated 7.6.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 6296/1999, on which the petitioners have place reliance, was also to the same effect. 5. By Annexure-11 representation dated 28.3.2004, the petitioners approached the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for their appointment as MV school teachers. Such representation was made after 11 years of the purported select list prepared in 1993. 6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. As per the said affidavit an advertisement was issued in September 1991 inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher in various categories of Lower Primary and Upper Primary school. Pursuant to the selection conducted, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bilashipara by his order dated 18.6.1993 appointed 161 teachers in Lower Primary school on stipendiary basis. Subsequently, the select list was cancelled by the Government by its order dated 9.7.1993. Number of writ petitions were filed assailing the order of cancellation. The writ petitions were disposed of setting aside and quashing the order of cancellation. However, liberty was granted to the State Government to take steps towards termination of services of the teachers who were already appointed by giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard. Certain guidelines were also issued. 7. After the aforesaid direction of this court, 168 terminated teachers were reappointed except one Smt. Sanchita Chakraborty, who did not appear for re-examination of her records. Accordingly the findings were placed before the Sub-Divisional Board, Bilashipara and by its resolution dated 18.7.1995 and 18.8.1995 regularised the services of said 168 terminated teachers. 8. The affidavit further reveals that the Advisory Board also made a list for appointment of Assistant Teacher in Middle Schools (Upper Primary) for appointment against future vacancies. It was in the said list, the petitioners were included at serial Nos. 9 and 17 respectively. However, subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board by its resolution adopted on 8.5.1995 stayed the earlier resolution for appointment of candidates against future vacancies. 9. The instant writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.8.2007. The order was passed ex parte against the petitioners in absence of their learned counsel. 9 and 17 respectively. However, subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board by its resolution adopted on 8.5.1995 stayed the earlier resolution for appointment of candidates against future vacancies. 9. The instant writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.8.2007. The order was passed ex parte against the petitioners in absence of their learned counsel. In the said order, there was categorical finding that the petitioners' names did not figure in the select list, which was prepared in 1993. It was observed that the petitioners could not have been selected against future vacancies. As per the said order, there was also no discernible basis for selecting the petitioner and other 17 candidates, who did not appear in the earlier selection process. 10. The aforesaid order dated 21.8.2007 was set aside by order dated 19.11.2007 on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioners in Misc. Case No. 3829/2007. In the application, the petitioners having assigned reasons for their inability to appear on the date of hearing through their learned counsel, this court restored the writ petition for further hearing. This is how the writ petition has been heard by this court afresh. 11. I have heard Mr. S.U. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 11. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioners is that the respondents have operated the select list of 1993 in 1999, 2000 and 2001 and even thereafter and consequently, the petitioners having been included in the select list are also entitled to get appointment. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not site any instance of making such appointments from the select list of 1993. However, he prayed for time to bring on record such appointments. Time was allowed. 12. The petitioners have filed additional affidavit making certain statements and have also annexed documents. None of the documents lend any support to the case of the petitioners. Annexure-1, minutes of the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board are of 1995 (4.1.1995). In the said meeting amongst others 17 candidates including the petitioners were recommended for appointment against future vacancies. That was not the task of the Advisory Board. The task of the Advisory Board was to review the decision relating to cancellation of the select list of 1993 and appointment made there under. In the said meeting amongst others 17 candidates including the petitioners were recommended for appointment against future vacancies. That was not the task of the Advisory Board. The task of the Advisory Board was to review the decision relating to cancellation of the select list of 1993 and appointment made there under. Even for appointment against future vacancies, the vacancies will have to be filled up inviting applications from all eligible candidates. Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules 1977 prescribes the method of recruitment, in terms of which in the month of January every year, the Member Secretary of the Selection Board is to invite applications through advertisement in the newspapers. Detail procedures have laid down for conducting selection by the Selection Board. The select list is to remain valid for one year from the date of its publication. 13. In the instant case, the select list in question was prepared in 1993 and upon cancellation of the same by the Government, the Selection Board reviewed the same as per the guidelines issued by this court. Thus, if the names of the petitioners were not included in the 1993 select list, there could not have any occasion for inclusion of their names in the review select list of 1995 and that too against future vacancies. The petitioners also did not appear in any selection. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules having mandated preparation of the select list year-wise and expiry of the same after one year, the petitioners cannot claim appointment on the basis of the list prepared by the Advisory Board, which is non est in the eye of law. 14. There is another aspect of the matter. Even leaving aside the merit of the case, the petitioners cannot claim any appointment on the basis of the select list prepared in 1993/1995 by approaching this court invoking its writ jurisdiction after 12 years of such select list. Delay and laches on the part of the petitioner itself a ground to reject their claim. As per rule 3 of the aforesaid rules, the select list having spent its force, the petitioners cannot claim any appointment. Delay and laches on the part of the petitioner itself a ground to reject their claim. As per rule 3 of the aforesaid rules, the select list having spent its force, the petitioners cannot claim any appointment. Moreover, as noted earlier, the petitioners were also not included in the original select list of 1993 and their inclusion in the minutes of discussion held on 4.1.1995 was not by way of any selection and their such inclusion was against future vacancies, which is impermissible. Such a course of action on the part of the Selection Board was totally illegal and opposed to the selection process envisaged in the rules. 15. All the above aspects of the matter were discussed in the order-dated 21.8.2007, by which the writ petition was dismissed. However, the order was set aside on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioner as the decision ex parte in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, even after recalling the said order dated 21.8.2007, the petitioners have miserably failed to bring on record any materials favouring the case of the petitioners. 16. For all the foregoing reasons, discussions and conclusions, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition merits dismissal, which I accordingly do. 17. Writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.