WP(C) 2324/2010 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 Chirang, which fall under the Bodoland Territoria l Administrative District (in short, ’the BTAD’) area. The case of the petitioners is, in brief, thus: Pursuant to a notice, dated 02. 03.2010, published at the Notice Board at the Office of the Joint Director of He alth Services, Chirang, the petitioners came to learn that a walk-in-interview w ould be held, on 02.03.2010, at the office of the Joint Director of Health Servi ces, Chirang, at 10-00 a.m., for appointment to the posts of MPW on a consolidat ed salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Based on the information, so received, thou gh the petitioners went to the office of the respondent No. 3, namely, Joint Dir ector of Health Services, Chirang, to participate in the selection process, the respondents did not permit the petitioners to participate in the interview. The selection has, thus, been made, according to the petitioners, arbitrarily and wi th 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, Chirang, have de nied the petitioners’ assertion that the petitioners had not been allowed to par ticipate in the interview. What have been contended by the respondents is that the interview was to be held, and was held, on 03.03.2010, at the Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Chirang, and not on 02.03.2010, as contended by the petitioners and that all those, who had come to participate in the interv iew, were interviewed and, on the basis of the interview, so held, the selection was made, which was not unfair and/or in breach of the relevant provisions of l aw. 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 other contentions, which have been raised by the petitioners, such as, the fact that t he prescribed qualification for the said post had not been made known to them, w ould be redundant, if the respondents’ contention is accepted that the petitione rs had never reported for interview. In the present case, the questions, which this Court has to decide, are, as to w hether the interview was held on 02.03.2010, or 03.03.2010, whether the petition ers had or had not gone to the place of interview and whether the petitioners we re or were not allowed to participate in the interview ? All these questions, p osed above, are, in the light of the averments, made by the respondents in their affidavit, disputed questions of fact. Resolving such disputed questions of fac t would require holding of roving enquiry, which would necessitate recording of evidence. The present writ proceeding is not an appropriate proceeding for hold ing such an 5enquiry. 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.