WP(C) 2333/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. M. Bordo loi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioners have put to challenge the selection and appointment of per sons to the post of Multipurpose Worker (in short, ’MPW’) at various public heal th centers, in the District of Udalguri, which fall under the Bodoland Territori al Administrative District (in short, ’the BTAD’). The case of the petitioners is, in brief, thus: Pursuant to a notice, dated 03. 03.2010, published at the Notice Board, at the Office of the Joint Director of H ealth Services, Udalguri, the petitioners came to learn that a walk-in-interview would be held on the very same day, i.e., on 03.03.2010, at office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Udalguri, for appointment to the posts of MPW. Ba sed on the information, so received, though the petitioners went to the office o f the respondent No. 3, namely, Joint Director of Health Services, Udalguri, to participate in the selection process, the respondents did not permit the petitio ners to participate in the interview. The selection has, thus, been made, accord ing to the petitioners, arbitrarily and with pre-determined mind. By filing their affidavit-in-opposition, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Princi pal Secretary, BTAD, and the Joint Director of Health Services, Udalguri, have d enied the petitioners’ assertion that the petitioners had not been allowed to pa rticipate in the interview. What have been contended by the respondents is that the petitioners did not come to participate in the interview and those, who had come to participate in the interview, were interviewed and, on the basis of the interview, so held, the selection was made, which was not unfair and/or in brea ch of the relevant provisions of law. In the present writ petition, it is not the case of the petitioners that they co uld not participate in the selection process because of lack of information; rat her, their case is that they were not allowed to participate. Hence, the questi on of adequate publicity of the notice becomes irrelevant. The petitioners also challenge the fairness of the selection process. If, as contended by the respon dents, the petitioners had not at all participated in the selection process, the re is no question of this Court determining as to whether the selection and appo intment of the persons, made by the respondents, was or was not fair. The primary questions, which this Court has to decide, in the present case, are, as to whether the petitioners had gone to the place of interview for participat ing in the interview and whether they were or were not allowed by the respondent s to participate in the interview. Both these questions are, in the light of th e averments, made by the respondents in their affidavit, are disputed questions of fact. In the present case, the petitioners contend that they were not allowed to participate in the interview; whereas the respondents contend that the petit ioners did not come to participate in the interview. Resolving such disputed qu estions of fact would require holding of roving enquiry, which would necessitate recording of evidence. The present writ proceeding is not an appropriate proce eding for holding such an enquiry. The other contentions, which have been raise d by the petitioners, such as, the fact that the prescribed questions for the sa id post had not been made known to them, would be redundant if the respondents’ contention is accepted that the petitioners had never reported for the interview . In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that this writ petition can not be admitted and the petitioners’ grievances, if any, can be resolved by inst ituting appropriate suit(s) in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. This writ petition is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly st and dismissed. No order as to cost.