WP(C) 2325/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. B. Choud hury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Heard also Ms. M. Bordoloi, lea rned 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 Kokrajhar, which fall under the Bodoland Territor ial Administrative District (in short, ’the BTAD’). The case of the petitioners is, in brief, thus: Pursuant to a notice, dated 27. 02.2010, published at the Notice Board, at the Office of the Joint Director of H ealth Services, Kokrajhar, the petitioners came to learn that a walk-in-intervie w would be held, on 02.03.2010, at the ANM Training Center, Kokrajhar District, for appointment to the posts of MPW on contractual basis. Based on the informat ion, so received, though the petitioners went to the office of the respondent No . 3, namely, Joint Director of Health Services, Kokrajhar, to participate in the selection process, the respondents did not permit the petitioners to participat e in the interview. The selection has, thus, been made, according to the petitio ners, 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, Kokrajhar, have denied the petitioners’ assertion that the petitioners had not been allowed to p articipate in the interview. What have been contended by the respondents is tha t the interview had been held as scheduled, the petitioners did not come to part icipate 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 wa s made, which was not unfair and/or in breach of the relevant provisions of law. What is of utmost importance to note, in the present writ petition, is that the primary question, which this Court has to decide, are, as to whether the petitio ners had gone to the place of interview to participate in the interview and whet her they were not allowed by the respondents to participate in the interview. Both these questions, posed above, are, in the light of the averments, made by t he respondents in their affidavit, are disputed questions of fact. It is not th e case of the petitioners that they were unaware of the place of interview and, that is why, they could not go to the place of interview for the purpose of taki ng part in the selection process. In such circumstances, it is immaterial as to whether the advertisement was in accordance with law or not, particularly, when the petitioners claim to have gone to the place of interview to participate in the selection process. If a person fails to participate in a selection process, because of lack of information about the selection process due to non-publicati on or inadequate publication of the advertisement for selection and appointment, he may challenge selection process on the ground of non-publication/inadequate publication of the advertisement; but, in the present case, as the petitioners c laim to have gone to the place of interview, it becomes redundant to determine a s to whether the publication of the advertisement was adequate or not. What, now, remains to be determined is the question as to whether the petitione rs had participated in the selection process. In the present case, the petition ers contend that they were not allowed to participate in the interview; whereas the respondents contend that the petitioners did not come to participate in the interview. Resolving such disputed questions of fact would require holding of r oving enquiry, which would necessitate recording of evidence. The present writ proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding for holding such an enquiry. The ot her contentions, which have been raised by the petitioners, such as, the fact th at the prescribed questions for the said post had not been made known to them, w ould be redundant if the respondents’ contention is accepted that the petitioner s 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’ grievance, if any, can be resolved by insti tuting 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.