1. Heard Mr. A. Matin, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Sarma, Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 4.9.2009 for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at No.35 Pachim Mousitha Anganwadi Center under Kalaigaon ICDS Project, the petitioner applied for the said post. The interview was held on 16.9.2009 and out of the three candidates, one Ms. Musena Sultana Parbeen secured the first position. The petitioner secured the second position. However, vide letter dated 1.9.2012, Ms. Musena Sultana Parbeen withdrew her candidature and requested the authorities to appoint the second position holder, i.e., the present petitioner. 3. The respondents without taking recourse to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker as per the select list prepared in pursuance of the interview held on 16.9.2009, issued a fresh advertisement dated 19.12.2013 for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in the same Angwandi Center. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, the petitioner submitted her application for appointment to the said post. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not sure if the petitioner had taken part in the interview held on 4.1.2014 pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013. He, however, submits that as the petitioner had already been placed at serial No.2 of the select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.9.2009, the petitioner should be appointed to the said vacancy as the candidate at serial No.l, Ms. Musena Sultana Parbeen had withdrawn her candidature. 5. Mr. B.K. Sarma, counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013 a fresh interview was held on 4.1.2014 and the petiticrvcr appeared before the interview board. Mr. Sarma states that as the petitioner had taken part in the subsequent interview held on 4.1.2014 pursuant to the fresh advertisement, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment on the basis of the earlier selection list prepared in pursuance of the earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009. 6. The Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 309 has held that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. 7. 6. The Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 309 has held that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the subsequent advertisement dated 19.12.2013 or the interview held on 4.1.2014 in which the petitioner had taken part. The petitioner has waived his right to be appointed on the basis of the earlier selection as he has taken part in the later selection process. The petitioner is now estopped from claiming appointment based on the earlier selection process. 8. In view of the fact that there is no dispute that a fresh advertisement had been issued and in view of the pleadings in the respondents' affidavit and the submission of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had taken part in the interview held on 4.1.2014, which is not disputed by the petitioner by way of a reply affidavit or otherwise, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot now claim appointment in terms of the select list prepared pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009 and the interview held on 16.9.2009. The respondent authorities shall make the appointment of Anganwadi Worker as per the select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.12.2013 and interview dated 4.1.2014. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.