JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The Appellants herein being unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge have made yet another attempt to challenge the selection process under taken by the Respondent authorities in selecting the candidates for filling up the promotional posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Railway Protection Force by pleading certain additional facts in this appeal which were not pleaded in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 27.3.2008. 2. We have heard Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned senior Counsel for the Appellants. 3. The learned senior Counsel referring to paragraph 9 of the writ appeal has submitted that the entire selection process was irregular, which the Appellants could know from the fellow Constables as the Question papers of the selection were leaked out; and that in the selection process many of the meritorious candidates were left out as they did not obliged the higher authorities with unreasonable demands. That apart, the senior Counsel has also pointed out certain circumstances for drawing inference as the selection was irregular. 4. Admittedly, those facts were not pleaded in the writ petition. Although the Appellants raised the issue of leakage of question papers, the learned Single Judge dealt with the issue and rejected the said contention in view of the scanty and ambiguous pleading without materials. 5. Situated, thus, the Appellants trying to improve their case by pleading certain facts at paragraph 9 of the appeal, which are vague, not supported by material particulars and no time of gathering such information has been disclosed, which is of vital importance. 6. The function of a writ court is not to find out or hunt for any fact and the consideration of writ court would be to see as to whether the decision making process has been vitiated by any irregularity, illegality, or impropriety or the authorities have acted arbitrarily without following the known principles of law. 7. In view of the above discussion, submission on the basis of such incomplete facts could be permitted to be raised by the Appellants in the manner it is pleaded. In our considered opinion, this is only an afterthought resorted to after dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the above discussion, submission on the basis of such incomplete facts could be permitted to be raised by the Appellants in the manner it is pleaded. In our considered opinion, this is only an afterthought resorted to after dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge has considered all the facts pleaded and points raised before him by the Appellants and we do not consider that any interference is warranted to set aside the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 8. No costs. Petition dismissed