Judgment 1. The appellants are unsuccessful petitioners. In the writ petition filed by them, they prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to lake examination of the students of the first petitioner-College who had completed teachers training course in the academic Sessions 1984-86, 1985-87, 1986-88, 1987-89, 1988-90, 1989-91, 1990-92, 1991-93, 1992-94, 1993-95, and 1994-96 and after holding the examination, publish their result. The writ petition was filed somewhere in the year 2006. 2. The Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior counsel for the appellants, invited our attention to the interim order, dated 13th June, 2007, passed by the Vacation Judge. By the said order, the Vacation Judge directed that genuine students of the first appellant-institution be directed to submit their fees and forms in response to the Advertisement no. 10 of 2007 issued by the Board for the sessions for which recognition was allowed by the State Government vide memo no.67 dated 26.04.1995. The Vacation Judge clarified that the result of the said students shall be subject to the result of the LPA. The Senior Counsel submits that subsequent to the order dated 13th June, 2007 passed by the Vacation Judge, the students took their examinations pursuant to advertisement no. 10 of 2007 and, now, their result be ordered to be declared. The Senior Counsel would also submit that the State Government having granted recognition to the first appellant-institution on 26.04.1995, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to hold examination of the students who had successfully completed teachers training course from the institution during the period from 1979-81 to 1994-96. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General, supported the order of the Single Judge. He also invited our attention to the order dated 23rd March, 2005 passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No.3794 of 2004 (Amod Prasad Singh & Others Vs. The Bihar School Examination Board and another) wherein the similar issues were raised and the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition which was filed at the instance of some of the students. The Advocate General submitted that the said decision has attained finality. 5. The Bihar School Examination Board and another) wherein the similar issues were raised and the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition which was filed at the instance of some of the students. The Advocate General submitted that the said decision has attained finality. 5. On admitted facts that the relief prayed for in the writ petition filed in the year 2006 related to the holding of examination for the teachers training course of the period 1979-81 till 1994-96, the view of the Single Judge that the writ petition suffered from laches and inordinate delay cannot be faulted. The question that is now required to be seen is: whether in view of the interim order passed by the Vacation Judge on 13th June, 2007 whereby the students of the first appellant- institution appeared in the examination in response to the Advertisement no.10 of 2007, the results deserve to be declared? We do not think so for more than one reason. For one, in the earlier writ petition filed by some of the students, namely CWJC No.3794 of 2004 Amod Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The Bihar School Examination Board & another, the similar issue had been raised and the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23rd March, 2005. That the said decision attained finality is not in dispute. If the result of the students who appeared pursuant to the interim order dated 13.06.2007, is ordered to be declared, such order would be inconsistent with the decision of this court dated 23rd March, 2005 which has already attained finality. For two, more importantly, the recognition dated 26.04.1995 said to have been granted by the State Government to the first appellant-institution has been declared to be non-est by the Single Judge in writ petition (CWJC No.3794 of 2004) which was decided on 23rd of March, 2005. Even if we accept the contention of the Senior Counsel that in that writ petition that was filed by the students, the appellant no. 1 institution was not a party, the fact of the matter is that recognition granted by the State Government on 26.04.1995 having been declared non-est ought to have been challenged by the first appellant-institution. It is not believable that the decision dated 23rd March, 2005 that was given by the Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.3794 of 2004 was not within the knowledge of the first appellant-institution. It is not believable that the decision dated 23rd March, 2005 that was given by the Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.3794 of 2004 was not within the knowledge of the first appellant-institution. Since the institution has been espousing the course of the students who undertook training, namely Teachers Training Course, from their institution, surely, the decision of this court dated 23rd March, 2005, would have been brought to their notice. 6. We may notice that although the Senior Counsel for the appellants sought to assail the correctness of the order dated 23rd March, 2005 by contending that in the said judgment the Single Judge wrongly recorded that the Central Act No.73 of 1993 came into effect with effect from 30th December, 1993 whereas it came into effect on 17th of August, 1995, but in our considered view, this aspect need not and cannot be examined in this appeal. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision dated 23rd March, 2005, the same ought to have been put in issue directly which they never did. 7. The appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine.