Soumitra Pal, J.@mdashIn the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the authorities of the Baduria Municipality in appointing the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to the post of Sikha Sawahika under Sishu Siksha Samity in Ward No. 7 of the said Municipality Relying on the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as there were irregularities in appointments, appropriate direction may be passed for conducting the interview afresh. Learned Advocate for the Baduria Municipality submits that the allegations made in the writ petition are not correct as interview was held on 18th December, 2009 and a panel has been prepared wherein the petitioner No. 1 has stood third and the candidature of the petitioner No. 2 has been rejected as she was found under-aged.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 9 and 10 submit that as the petitioners had participated in the interview they cannot turn back and challenge the process. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in
3. It is evident from the submission by the learned Advocate for the Baduria Municipality that the petitioners had appeared in the interview and after being unsuccessful had challenged the process without raising any protest during examination. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the principles of law laid down in paragraph 23 of the judgement in Om Prakash Shukia (supra). Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. No order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
