WP(C) 648/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned S tanding Counsel, Finance. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the writte n test held on 11.2.2006 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tezp ur, for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA). According to the petitioner, there was irregularity in conducting the selection. However, the fact of the matter is that after the said selection, appointments have also bee n made. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed the appointment orders of the respondents No. 6 & 7 issued on 1.9.2006. Now, after expiry of more than 4 (four) years, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to disturb the said selection and the appointments thereof. According to the petitioner, in the written test held for the selection, there was manipulation in the selection process, however, nothing concrete has been stated in the writ petition. Needless to say that the writ court cannot mak e a roving enquiry to find out as to whether there was any irregularity in the selection, that too after more than 4 (four) years of the selection. Apart from the above, the appointment orders of the private respondents, which are dated 1. 9.06 are also not under challenge. Another prayer made in the writ petition is to stay the selection proces s which was initiated by notification dated 1.2.2010, for which the interview an d practical test were held on 28.1.2011. However, nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to why the selection is to be interfered with. For all the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in the writ petiti on and accordingly it is dismissed.