JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners applied for the posts of Assistants as per the advertisement made by the respondents in the newspaper published on 30.9.2004. Petitioners were issued admit cards for the written examination which was held on 8.11.2004. Petitioners appeared in the said examination. Thereafter, result was published but the petitioners have not been declared successful. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6656 of 2004 submitted that as per the advertisement written test in two subjects, namely, General Hindi and General Knowledge of 100 marks each was to be conducted but the respondents conducted written examination of only one subject, namely, General knowledge of 100 marks and did not conduct the examination of General Hindi for the reason best known to the respondents. Learned counsel also sub-mitted that the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting written examination of only one subject was contrary to the advertisement. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6852 of 2004 sub-mitted that although the written examination was to be taken for General Hindi and General Knowledge separately but surprisingly enough the said examination was taken in one sitting and both the subjects were tagged up, wherein 75 marks were provided for General Knowledge and 25 marks were provided for General Hindi. Learned counsel further submitted that although the petitioner did well in the said written examination and was very sure to get more than 70% marks but he was not declared successful. 5. In course of hearing, one copy of question paper was produced before me. From perusal whereof, it appears that the question paper contained in two parts i.e. General Knowledge of 75 marks and General Hindi of 25 marks and the examination was taken in one sitting. It is, therefore, not the fact that written examination of only one subject, namely, General Knowledge was taken. Of course, there is some deviation from the procedure provided in the advertisement but the petitioners never raised objection rather they participated in the examination. It is, therefore, not the fact that written examination of only one subject, namely, General Knowledge was taken. Of course, there is some deviation from the procedure provided in the advertisement but the petitioners never raised objection rather they participated in the examination. It was only when the petitioners were not declared successful they filed these writ petitions and challenged the publication of result on the ground that the condition prescribed in the advertisement was not followed. In my opinion, once the petitioners participated in the examination without raising any objection they cannot subsequently raise objection on the aforesaid ground. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, wherein Supreme Court while dealing with the similar situation has observed : "24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination." 6. In the background of the aforesaid facts, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. These writ petitions are dismissed.