WP(C) 2961/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel of the petitioners as well as Mr. D. K. Saikia, learned CGSC. By means of this writ petition the petitioner numbering five who are the aspirants for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the CRPF have questioned the select list dated 15.05.2010 by which the candidates qualif ied in the typing test were notified. The only ground on which the petitioners h ave challenged the said select list is that although they had brought their own computers to the examination hall, but they were not allowed to use the same and instead the respondents provided official computers which according to the peti tioners were defective. In the call letters it was provided that the candidates would be allowed to bring his/her own computer on their own expenses and risk to take typing test, otherwise he/she would accept the computer which would be pro vided by the respondents. In paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it has been stated thus: 4. That the petitioners beg to state that as per the instruction mentioned in the call letters as well as in the advertisement the petitioners brought thei r own computers with them in the interview centre but all of a sudden when the t est was about to start without giving any prior information most arbitrarily and most illegally the respondent authorities did not allow the petitioners to use their personnel computers. The respondent authorities illegally provided a defec tive computer for typing test. As a result the petitioners could not give the ab ove typing test properly, result of which they failed to qualify in the typing t est. 5. That the petitioner begs to state that after the above test all the peti tioners tried to submit a complaint before the DIG (Respondent No. 5) Group Cent re about the above illegality of the selection Board but the officials did not a llowed them to meet DIGP. Finding no alternative your petitioners are approachin g this honourable court for appropriate relief. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit completely denying the afores aid plea of the petitioners. According to the respondents, the petitioners did n ot bring their own computers and accordingly official computers were provided to them to undertake the typing test. It has been alleged that the petitioners hav ing failed in the typing test have brought the false allegations against the res pondents. In this connection, the respondents have disclosed the assessment mad e in respect of the typing speed of the petitioners in paragraph- 5 of the count er affidavit. In the affidavit in reply, the petitioners have reiterated their stand of not be ing allowed to use their own computers. Such disputed questions of fact cannot b e decided by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners were ag grieved by alleged deprivation of using their own computers, they ought not have participated in the typing writing test. They even did not make any representat ion against the purported deprivation. Their further plea that they were not all owed to meet the respondent No. 5 is also not believable. If for any reason they were not allowed to meet the respondent No. 5, they could have made appropriate representation to the appropriate authority, but instead kept on waiting till t he results were declared and thereafter when they failed in the type writing tes t, they approached this court by filing the instant writ petition. The petitione rs having appeared in the typing test by way of taking a chance for favourable c onsideration and thereafter having failed in the typing test, cannot be permitte d to raise the aforesaid plea. They are estopped from doing so. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed.