JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. A writ petition was filed challenging the eligibility clause for selections to the post of Lecturer in Beauty Culture. By Notification dated 21.11.1996, eligibility clause for selection was amended, providing for two years experience, to be preferential. The advertisement was issued on 20.01.1997. Learned Single Judge found that the change of eligibility, by an amendment, had resulted into discrimination as against the petitioners, and allowed the writ petition on 13.01.1999, directing that fresh selections be made of the candidates who had appeared before the Interview Board on the dates mentioned, by earmarking the marks under different items of academic qualifications, experience, extra-curricular activities etc. etc. 3. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.185/1999, the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 04.11.2003, set aside the order of learned Single Judge, on the ground that the persons who were selected, were not impleaded as party. The matter was remanded, after setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, to raise all the grounds and submissions available, before learned Single Judge. 4. On remand, learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the rule making authority could have changed the eligibility conditions. There was nothing on record to show that particular amendment was made in the Rules of 1973, notified on 21.11.1996, to favour, or accommodate a particular person. 5. In the penultimate paragraph, learned Single Judge observed that after considering the entire facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court, more so when the whole selection process is over long over and appointments were given to the selected candidates. 6. In these Special Appeals, arising out the judgment of learned Single Judge on remand, once again the same questions have been raised, which were considered, and on which the amendment was set aside with direction to hold the selections afresh. 7. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, on the grounds, firstly that the persons who were selected, were not impleaded as party; secondly the appellants participated in the selection with full knowledge of amendment in the Rules; and thirdly that almost 18 years have passed since the selections were held and appointments were given to the selected candidates. 8. All the Special Appeals are dismissed. 8. All the Special Appeals are dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed in all the connected filed.Special appeals dismissed. *******