ORDER : 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the list of the selected candidates, published for the post of Plant Attendant Trainees in Bokaro Steel Ltd, pursuant to the Advertisement No. BSL/R/2007-05 and the petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to initiate fresh appointment process after following the guidelines of the Government and after adhering to the Recruitment Policy of the Company. 2. Heard Ms. Kirti Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that an Advertisement No. BSL/R/2007-05 was published for the appointment of Plant Attendant Trainees (Male) in the Bokaro Steel Plant and the total number of posts were 300 and in pursuance to the Advertisement, the petitioners have applied for appointment on the said post. After written exams, the result was declared on the Internet in the months of October-November, 2007. It has been averred in the writ application, that the same was not published in the newspaper. After the Written Test and the Interview was conducted, only the names of the successful candidates in the Final result were informed through the Post. The petitioners who were declared unsuccessful in the aforesaid selection, have challenged the process of selection on the ground that the respondents-Company has not followed the Recruitment Policy so far as reservation of Ex-servicemen, Physically handicapped, as provided under Clause 10.2 as also under Clause 13.3 of the Recruitment Policy has not been adhered to. Being aggrieved by the non-selection to the aforesaid posts, the petitioner no. 1 submitted representation before the respondents-authorities highlighting the irregularities, committed in the selection procedure as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the selection process on the aforesaid posts, the petitioners, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 4. Ms. Kirti Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners, during course of hearing, has submitted that the selection procedure adopted by the respondents-Company suffers from serious irregularities. 4. Ms. Kirti Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners, during course of hearing, has submitted that the selection procedure adopted by the respondents-Company suffers from serious irregularities. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents-Company ought to have exhibited transparency in the selection on the aforesaid post and the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners on the aforesaid post, amounts to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the Presidential directive regarding the quantum of reservation for Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts under the Government of India has been adhered to by the respondents-Company, such as 12 per cent for Scheduled Castes, 26 per cent for Scheduled Tribes, and 12 per cent for OBC in the selection of the candidates for the post of grant of non-attendent trainees and there has been no flouting of any Rules by the Respondents-Company. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that as per the recruitment process, candidates short listed through the written test, were called for interview. All the candidates have received interview call letters by registered speed post. Additionally, the result of the written test was also hoisted on the Internet for all candidates to view. The result was published on the Company's website, where any person could view the result, so there was absolutely no mala fide/ill motive on the part of the respondents. The result of the selection has been made available under the Right to Information Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party-respondents in the writ application and on that score, the writ petition is not maintainable. Apart from that, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that having been found unsuccessful in the written test, the petitioners were estopped to challenge the selection. 7. Apart from that, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that having been found unsuccessful in the written test, the petitioners were estopped to challenge the selection. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements : - (i) From the pleadings of the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioners after having undergone the process of selection, were not found successful and admittedly, they have not impleaded the successful candidates as party-respondents in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, any decision affecting the selection, the selected candidates have a right to be heard in the present case and therefore, on that score, the writ petition is not maintainable. (ii) Apart from that, it is also settled position of law that the unsuccessful candidates having undergone the process of selection, cannot turn around and challenge the same process of selection. So far as the process of selection is concerned, it is quite apparent from the averments made in the counter affidavit that there has been absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the process of selection, so as to warrant any interference in the process of selection. (iii) Moreover, the process of selection came to an end in the year 2008, and in the meantime, almost 9 years have elapsed and in the absence of necessary respondents, it would not be proper to adjudicate the matter and the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitor to the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition sans merit, is dismissed.