JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners who are serving as Pracharaks on honorary basis, have prayed for giving them appointment on Class III post in the Panchayat Department as per the directions issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 06.10.2005 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1773 of 1999 and allied matters. 2. The controversy in the present writ petition emanates from the aforesaid order of the Division Bench wherein the Division Bench, after analyzing the entire controversy and the issue of appointment of Pracharak, issued following directions: “In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are disposed of in the following terms: (a) The decisions taken by the State Government, which have been reproduced above shall be read as part of this order. (b) The process of recruitment already initiated for filling up Class III posts in the service of State Government or Panchayats shall be completed, as far as possible, within six months and the Pracharaks be given the benefit in terms of Clause 3 of the decision. (c) In future recruitments the Pracharaks shall be given the benefit of relaxation in age qualification and their candidature be considered in accordance with the relevant rules provided they possess necessary educational qualification.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Division Bench, the State Government vide Order dated 04.04.2006, prepared a list of 53 Pracharaks which included the names of present petitioners except petitioner Nos.18, 19 and 26. As per the direction of the Division Bench, the State Government carried out the recruitment process granting the benefit of age relaxation to the present petitioners. They participated in the recruitment process and as fairly stated by learned advocate Mr. N. K Majmudar for the petitioners, on taking instructions from petitioner No.1, who is present in the Court, they did not clear the same. Having failed in the recruitment process, the petitioners have again approached this Court for the aforesaid direction for appointing them on Class III post pursuant to order dated 06.10.2005 passed by the Division Bench. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave, on instructions from the respondent authorities, has stated that so far as petitioners Nos.18, 19 and 26 are concerned, their services were already terminated in the year 1988. Hence, their names did not reflect in the list annexed with Order dated 04.04.2006. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave, on instructions from the respondent authorities, has stated that so far as petitioners Nos.18, 19 and 26 are concerned, their services were already terminated in the year 1988. Hence, their names did not reflect in the list annexed with Order dated 04.04.2006. He has submitted that after participation in the recruitment process which was undertaken pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, some of the petitioners excluding petitioners Nos.18,19 and 26, have failed in the selection process. In this view of the matter, it is stated that no right accrues in favour of the petitioners for again asking for appointment as Pracharak on regular basis on Class III post under the Panchayat Department. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayers made in the present petition are misconceived since the petitioners are seeking a direction to consider their appointment on Class III post pursuant to order dated 06.10.2005 of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1773 of 1999 and allied matters. After the directions of the Division Bench, the State Government has undertaken the recruitment process granting age relaxation to the present petitioners who, after undergoing the same, have been unable to clear the same. The issue was extensively examined by the Division Bench in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and after examining the entire issue threadbare, the directions were issued to the State Government to carry out the recruitment process. Having failed in the same, the petitioner cannot ask for regular appointment in the same post pursuant to the aforesaid decision. They had also got a chance to undergo the recruitment process by taking the benefit of age relaxation. Thus, they cannot ask for regular appointment as a matter of right in absence of any rule or regulation framed by the State Government for such Pracharaks. 6. In view of above discussion, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.