Honble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 2.1.2006 whereby the representation of the petitioners for sending him on training of Special B.T.C. Training Course (1998) has been rejected by the respondent No. 2. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The respondent No. 2 made an advertisement on 8.3.1998 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for filling up the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schools through Special B.T.C. Training Course. The petitioners have applied for the same within time enclosing all necessary documents. In the meantime since the petitioner had already appeared in the back paper examinations of B.Ed. for improving their marks in the theory papers and the result of which was declared and the petitioner secured better marks therein, therefore, they made request through representation dated 28.8.1998 and 2.9.1998 to the respondent No. 2 to entertain the new mark-sheet for the purposes of calculating and preparation of merit list for the appointment in Special B.T.C. Training. Though the new mark-sheets of the petitioners were duly received in the office of respondent No. 2 but they did not consider them for the purposes of consideration of merit list and declared the result of Special B.T.C. Training Course in March, 1999 in which the petitioners did not find the name in the select list, although the merit of the petitioner is much above the last selected candidate. The merit of last selected candidate was 52.99 and whereas the merit of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were 56.71 and 55.41 respectively. After the declaration of the result petitioners made several representations to the authority concerned with a request to consider and entertain the revised mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to undergo training of Special B.T.C. Course but the authority concerned did not pay any attention to the request of the petitioner. In the meantime this Hon’ble Court delivered a judgment and order dated 22.5.2003 involving similar set of facts. This Court in Writ Petition No. 39289 of 2000, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and others passed an order commanding the respondents to consider the revised mark-sheet issued by the University for calculating the merit for the appointment in Special B.T.C. Training Course (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The petitioners subsequent thereto made a fresh representation dated 23.8.2004 annexing the copy of the said judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 39289 of 2000 requesting the authority to permit the petitioner to undergo training of Special B.T.C. Course in the light of the judgment and order dated 23.8.2004 in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Yadav v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and others (supra). It is further stated in the writ petition that on the basis of judgment dated 22.5.2003 respondents considered the claim of Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and send him for training. When no heed or any fresh order in favour of petitioner was passed, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3911 of 2004 before this Court and this Court issued a direction on 16.11.2004 directing the respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter of petitioners considering the order passed in Writ Petition No. 39289 of 2000, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and others (supra). The said order dated 16.11.2004 passed by this Court was submitted by the petitioners alongwith their representations to the concerned authority and in pursuance of the same respondent No. 2 issued a letter for councilling before respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2004. Respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioners by order dated 2.1.2006. Hence the present writ petition.

2. This Court by order dated 24.1.2006 inter-alia pa