JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3; Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the appointment of the respondent No. 3 in the post of Driver pursuant to a selection process initiated by the Gauhati High Court. The challenge made to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 is on the ground that the licence of the respondent No. 3 was not a valid license in terms with Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which stipulates that no person under the age of 20 (twenty) years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. It was mentioned that the private respondent would be 20 (twenty) years only on 15.01.2014 and the last date for submission of the application was on 23.12.2013, on which date, the private respondent was not eligible to be entitled to drive a transport vehicle. 3. Taking into account the case of the petitioner, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the advertisement which was issued on 09.12.2013 for filling up of 5 (five) post of Barkandaz (Driver) in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. The eligibility condition was that the candidate should have a minimum educational qualification of Class VIII Standard and should possess a valid Professional Driving Licence. 4. It is relevant to take note of from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 do not conceive of a Professional Driving Licence. What is conceived of is a transport licence and a non- transport licence. Therefore, the very term in the advertisement of having a Professional Driving Licence was ambiguous and as such, none of the candidates had a Professional Driving License. 5. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that, 16 (sixteen) candidates participated in the selection process. The private respondent was at Serial No. 5 in the select list, whereas the petitioner was at Serial No. 6. 5. This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that, 16 (sixteen) candidates participated in the selection process. The private respondent was at Serial No. 5 in the select list, whereas the petitioner was at Serial No. 6. Pursuant thereto, on 05.02.2015, the select list was published wherein the petitioner's name was shown in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 whereas the private respondent was amongst the selected candidates. 6. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the selection of the private respondent on 04.12.2017, but without it being registered, the said petition was withdrawn and subsequently the present writ petition was filed on 06.02.2018. 7. The question arises, as to whether, any interference is called for to the selection of the private respondent and his appointment when such a challenge is made after 3 (three) years from the date of selection. 8. It has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondent that he was appointed on 19.03.2015 after carrying out necessary verification of his Driving Licence and obtaining the report from the Office of the DTO, Dibrugarh on 26.02.2015. 9. It surprises this Court that the petitioner herein has not assailed the appointment order. 10. The record further reveals from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, as already stated herein above that there is no concept of a Professional Driving Licence. The respondent No.1 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was stated that the word Professional Licence has been used in the advertisement on the ground that in various Judicial pronouncements, the term Professional Driving Licence has been mentioned. 11. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 12. The petitioner herein was one of the candidates who applied and he had due notice that on 05.02.2015, the petitioner was not selected, but was put in the waiting list. The petitioner for reasons best known did not challenge the selection and appointment of the private respondent till 06.02.2018, when the present writ petition was filed. It is the opinion of this Court that on this count alone, the instant writ petition is required to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. 13. The petitioner for reasons best known did not challenge the selection and appointment of the private respondent till 06.02.2018, when the present writ petition was filed. It is the opinion of this Court that on this count alone, the instant writ petition is required to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. 13. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect to Rule 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is stipulated that no person under the age of 20 (twenty) years shall drive a transport vehicle. It is relevant to take note of that driving a transport vehicle is not an eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. What was mentioned in the advertisement was having a Professional Driving Licence which is an ambiguous term not found either in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 or even in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On this ground alone, the question of interfering with the appointment of the private respondent herein does not arise. Further to that, the petitioner has not challenged the driving licence of the private respondent. 14. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.