WPSS No. 283 of 2012 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Seema Sah, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners were candidates and appeared for various posts and could not qualify. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the selection process on the various grounds. This court is of the opinion that the candidates who appeared in the selection process could not turn around and question the selection process after they failed. Further, the Court finds that the petitioners has not made the selected candidates as necessary parties, inasmuch as, in the event, the writ petition succeeds, the selected candidates would be materially affected. To that extent, the writ petition is defective at this stage. However, from a perusal of annexure-4 and 6 of the writ petition, the Court finds that the persons who have been selected as depicted in annexure-6 are atleast some of those whose roll number do not find in the selected list which is annexure-4 to the writ petition. This is somewhat strange and, consequently, the Court suo moto takes notice and issues notice to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 represented by Mrs. Seema Sah, the learned counsel to file the counter affidavit within three weeks. Since no malafide has been alleged against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, notices are not being issued. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court hereby directs that the appointments made by the respondents pursuant to the selection process shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.03.2012 Shiv