JUDGMENT : Instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2016. 2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the appellants after undergoing selection process held by the recruitment authority pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.02.2010 joined services & appointed vide order dated 02.11.2010 & have reported on duty without any demur, completed their period of probation and confirmed on the posts. 3. At this juncture, Now, the appellants are questioning the criteria laid down by the authority in conducting the interview in which the appellants have also participated held during the period 03.09.2010 to 16.09.2010 & the petition has been filed in the year 2016 after almost 6 years of the selection process attained finality; all the appointments were made & at the appellants completed the period of probation and confirmed on their respective posts. 4. The learned Single Judge was also not satisfied with the inordinate delay in questioning the criteria of selection and dismissed the writ petition on the said premise under order impugned dated 29.02.2016. 5. Counsel for the appellants has tried to persuade this Court that if indulgence is granted to him on merits, he is confident to justify that the procedure adopted by the authority in conducting interview was contrary to the criteria which was widely circulated under the advertisement pursuant to which, selection process was initiated. 6. Submissions made deserve outright rejection for the reason that once the criteria was adopted by the recruitment authority & made applicable in rem to all the candidates who have participated including the present appellants as well & on the recommendations made by the authority as per the order of merit candidates who find place against the number of vacancies advertised were appointed on probation vide order dated 02.11.2010 & on completion of the period of probation, confirmed by the appointing authority without any demur, the appellants at this stage could not be permitted to question the process which has adopted holding selection & rightly declined by the learned Single Judge. 7. Apart from that, we further record that litigant might have some remote justification but it was expected that he must get advise at least with some sense of responsibility. 8. After we have heard counsel for the appellants, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge to cause interference by this Court. 9. 7. Apart from that, we further record that litigant might have some remote justification but it was expected that he must get advise at least with some sense of responsibility. 8. After we have heard counsel for the appellants, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge to cause interference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the present special appeal stands dismissed.