ORDER : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. That by the instant writ application the petitioner above named pray for the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing/ setting aside the final result dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-4 & 4/1) publish for the post of Associate Professor of National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi pursuant to Advertisement being Ref no. NUSRL/RNC/2017/6951 dated 01.08.2017. Since the candidature of petitioner was rejected on the ground that he denied to be interviewed for the post of Associate Professor and hence no marks were allotted to the petitioner in the said interview, which is absolutely false since he was present in the interview and very well represented himself before the interview panel and has not stated any such statement which was published in the final result dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-4/1). And For commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi of pursuant to Advertisement being Ref no. NUSRL/RNC/2017/6951 dated 01.08.2017 issued under the signature Registrar (I/C) published in website and also in daily vernacular newspapers and the petitioner further prays for declaration of his interview's marks which was conducted on 17.11.2017 at 8:00 AM for the post of Associate Professor (Law). AND That by the instant writ petition the petitioner above named pray for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for setting aside/ quashing the entire selection procedure for the post of Professor (Law) and Associate Professor (Law) of National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi pursuant to Advertisement being ref no. NUSRL/RNC/2017/6951 dated 01.08.2017. AND/OR For the issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the interview for the post of Professor (Law) was taken just before the interview of Associate Professor (Law); so, the Petitioner requested the Interview Board to dispense with his separate interview and to consider his candidature for both the position. It has been submitted that the result and marks were published and the Petitioner secured second rank for the post of Professor, and for the post of Associate Professor in the remark column, it is mentioned "Not Interviewed". It has been submitted that the result and marks were published and the Petitioner secured second rank for the post of Professor, and for the post of Associate Professor in the remark column, it is mentioned "Not Interviewed". He further submits that the Respondent-NUSRL has over-looked that the minimum eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Associate Professor is UGC NET qualified or PHD along with 8 years teaching experience on proper UGC grade; however, the Respondent nos. 4 and 5 do not have any of the qualification; yet they have been declared successful for the post of Associate Professor. Thugh, the Petitioner has made a representation, however, nothing was considered. 3. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 draws attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 9, 10, 12 & 13 of the counter affidavit filed on 10.03.2022 and submits that pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Professor and Associate Professor on regular and contract basis published on 01.08.2017, several applications were received. The Petitioner had also represented the Hon’ble Chancellor and received an offer of appointment from reputed institute and joining time was till 31.01.2018; however, interestingly the Petitioner resigned from the post of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) and Assistant Dean of NUSRL on 31.01.2018 to join the new assignment. It has further been stated that the Petitioner filed this writ application after tendering his resignation and accordingly learned counsel submits that the instant writ application is frivolous and has been filed to harass the Respondents. 4. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it is evident that the screening committee consisting of very senior and experienced professors was constituted as per UGC norms for determining the eligibility of the candidates for selection on different posts. Similarly, the Interview Board was also constituted consisting of four members. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi, Member Law Commission of India was the Chairperson of the Interview Board and Prof. (Dr). K.V.S Sharma, Prof. (Dr.) Harpreet Kaur and Prof. (Dr.) V. C. Vivekanandan were other three members of that Interview Board. So far as claim for selection of the Petitioner to the post of Associate Professor (Law) is concerned; it appears that the Petitioner was not ready to be interviewed for the post of Associate Professor. (Dr). K.V.S Sharma, Prof. (Dr.) Harpreet Kaur and Prof. (Dr.) V. C. Vivekanandan were other three members of that Interview Board. So far as claim for selection of the Petitioner to the post of Associate Professor (Law) is concerned; it appears that the Petitioner was not ready to be interviewed for the post of Associate Professor. All members including the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Interview Board has recorded their respective observation on this issue. The Hon’ble Chairperson observed that “the candidate states that he is not willing to be interviewed as he has standing offer for the post of Professor elsewhere.” Similarly, two other members observed that “Declined to be interviewed”. Prof. (Dr.) Harpeet Kaur had observed that “Candidate was not interested to appear for interview for Associate Professorship-excused himself from interview after talking to Interview Board”. 5. It further transpires that a fresh advertisement was also issued in the year 2019 and 2020; however, the Petitioner never applied for that and at present the Petitioner is working as Professor at National Institute of Security Markets on temporary basis which is notarized in the State of Maharashtra on 29.04.2024. The specific statements made in the counter affidavit has not been controverted; rather it has been admitted by the Petitioner that he has resigned from his post and thereafter he is presently working in the State of Maharashtra. 6. Even otherwise, the Petitioner had filed this writ application after his resignation. At the cost of repetition, when the Petitioner had represented the Hon’ble Chancellor, he received an offer of appointment and joining time was till 31.01.2018; however, interestingly the Petitioner resigned from the post of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) and Assistant Dean of NUSRL on 31.01.2018 to join the new assignment. Thus, he is also not having any locus to challenge the action of the Respondents after his resignation. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. However, there is no order to cost.