JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.B.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 i.e. University Grants Commission is on record. Also on record is that Mr. A. Chamuah represents respondent no. 6. 2. Challenge is made to the letter dated 16.10.2012 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh whereby the petitioners were informed that the Statutory Selection Committee had not recommended their cases to the Executive Council of the University for their promotion to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement and Promotion Scheme (CAPS) in the Department of Education. Selection for promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor was initiated by Notice dated 26.11.2010. Both the petitioners responded to the said Notice and appeared in the interview held on 29.1.2011. Pertinent to mention, at the time when the Notice was issued, the Rules governing the selection was the Dibrugarh University Teachers' Services Condition Ordinance, 1974 (amended upto March, 2007). On an apprehension that the selection and result thereof would be made in terms of the Ordinance of 1974 (amended upto 31.12.2010), a writ petition was instituted by the petitioners being W.P. (C) No. 788/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.4.2012 and while doing so, this Court considered the affidavit filed by the respondent University where a categorical plea had been taken that the interview/selection was conducted as per the un-amended provisions of the Ordinance. The minutes of the Selection Committee was also produced before this Court in a sealed cover and from a perusal of the said minutes, this Court observed that the selection had been conducted as per the provisions of the un-amended Ordinance. As publication of the results of the selection was kept on hold by an interim order passed in the said writ petition, this Court granted liberty to the respondent University to publish the results with further liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court if aggrieved by the result of the selection. As the result did not stand in favour of the petitioners, the instant proceedings have been instituted. 3. As the result did not stand in favour of the petitioners, the instant proceedings have been instituted. 3. The basis for making challenge to the letter/order dated 16.10.2012 is that although the respondent University had placed submission and pleadings in the earlier round of litigation that the selection was based on the un-amended provisions of the Ordinance, however, from a bare perusal of the letter/order dated 16.10.2012 as well as the proceedings of the Executive Council, it is apparent that assessment had been made as per the amended provisions of the Ordinance. Petitioners have referred to the letter dated 16.10.2012 wherein they have been addressed by showing their designation as Assistant Professor (Stage-II). According to the petitioners, this itself goes to show that assessment of their merits had been done as per the amended provisions of the Ordinance. In so far as the proceedings of the Executive Council (Annexure-11) is concerned, the petitioners have not been able to pinpoint as it how it can be said that selection had been made in terms of the amended Ordinance. 4. Mr. R. Goswami submits that the case laid out by the petitioners is only under an apprehension that in view of their designation shown as Assistant Professor (Stage-II) in the letter dated 16.10.2012, the petitioners fear that selection was conducted as per the amended provisions of the Ordinance. Mr. Goswami also submits that no substantial materials have been placed for warranting interference of the letter/order dated 16.10.2012. Further contention is that, apart from the apprehension expressed, no other cogent grounds have been taken in the writ petition. Categorical reference is made to paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Dibrugarh University to say that the standard adopted in the selection held pursuant to Notice dated 26.11.2010 was strictly on the basis of the Ordinance of 1974 (amended upto March, 2007). For better appreciation of the stand of the University, paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced hereunder: "16. That the statements made in paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition, save and except those borne by record, are not true and correct and the same are hereby denied. In this connection, I say that there was no Executive Council Meeting held from 27th January to 3rd February, 2011. However, the Selection Committee took interview of the candidates from 27.01.2011 to 03.02.2011 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). In this connection, I say that there was no Executive Council Meeting held from 27th January to 3rd February, 2011. However, the Selection Committee took interview of the candidates from 27.01.2011 to 03.02.2011 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). In fact, the petitioners also appeared before the Selection Committee on 29.01.2011. In this connection, I further say that the candidates, including the petitioners who applied pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.11.2010 for promotion under CAPS were considered as per the criteria laid down in the Ordinance, 1974 (amended up to March, 2007). Though the promotion of the candidates pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.2010 were considered as per the criteria laid down in the Ordinance 1974 (as amended up to 31.12.2010) as by that time the aforesaid amendment were given effect to. In view of the above, the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition that the standard adopted in the selection was on the basis of the amendment made on 31.12.2010 and not on the basis of Ordinance 1974 (amended up to March, 2007) are not true and correct and the same are hereby specifically denied." 5. Mr. Ahmed have placed reliance in the case of Rajeshwar Singh (Dr.) vs. University Grants Commission and Others, reported in 2012 (1) GLT 172 in support of the case of the petitioners. A perusal of the judgment shows that the same was rendered in a different context wherein the minutes of the Selection Committee had been quashed by this Court and as a consequence, the University respondents had been directed to re-constitute a Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Reader. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. Apparently, no cogent grounds have been made in questioning the legality and validity of the letter/order dated 16.10.2012. Only an apprehension is expressed that the standard adopted in the selection was on the basis of the amended provision of the Ordinance. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. Apparently, no cogent grounds have been made in questioning the legality and validity of the letter/order dated 16.10.2012. Only an apprehension is expressed that the standard adopted in the selection was on the basis of the amended provision of the Ordinance. It would be important to note that the issue as to whether selection pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.11.2010 was made either in terms of the un-amended provisions or the amended provisions of the Ordinance, is not open to challenge by the petitioners in view of the fact that the said issue was answered in the order of this Court dated 24.4.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 788/2011. The said order have attained finality as no further proceedings challenging the said order dated 24.4.2012 has been brought to the notice of this Court or that the same have been overruled. What remains to be considered is the letter/order dated 16.10.2012 and whether from a perusal thereof it can be gathered that the standard of procedure adopted was in terms of the amended provisions of the Ordinance. A mere perusal of the same and in the absence of any cogent grounds pleaded in the writ petition, this Court cannot entertain the prayers made by the writ petitioners and holds that no satisfactory material has been brought on record to establish that the procedure adopted by the University was as per the amended Ordinance. In so far as the case of Rajeshwar Singh (supra) is concerned, this Court also holds that the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this instant case, in as much as, the action of the Respondent University is not found to be improper or vitiated. 7. Mr. Ahmed submits that the petitioners have been stagnating as Assistant Professor (Stage-II) since 2007 and, therefore, a direction may be made to the respondent University to initiate fresh steps towards promoting them to the higher rank. The said submission is taken on board, leaving it open for the respondent University to take steps, as deemed necessary. 8. Barring the observation above, the writ petition, being utterly devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No cost.