JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow University. 2. The petitioners have prayed for issuing a mandamus to the respondent nos.3 and 4 to hold interview of the petitioners in pursuant to advertisement no.R-17/2015 for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Lucknow University. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have completed their Ph.D. in 2004, whereas as per University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulation 2009 (in short 'UGC Regulation, 2009'), the candidate should possess the eligibility of NET/SLET/SET, which, as per UGC Regulation, 2009, have been provided the minimum eligibility criteria for recruitment of Assistant Professor and Assistant Librarian/College Librarian or equivalent positions in University/Colleges/Institutions particularly for those candidates, who were awarded Ph.D. degree in accordance with Regulation, 2009. 4. The Controversy involved in the matter has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.) was a Member in writ petition no.6556 (S/B) of 2016. In the said case, this Court held that "the facts that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of NET/SLET/SET nor was he awarded Ph.D. degree in accordance with Regulation 2009 are not disputed therefore, he could not be said to be an eligible candidate for selection/appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. Since he lacks the eligibility for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, there was no reason to permit him to appear before the Selection Committee.". 5. Since the petitioners do not possess the qualification as has been prescribed in the UGC Regulation, 2009, we are of the view that the relief as sought by the petitioners can not be granted due to lack of their qualification. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.