ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs : 1. To set aside letter dated 4.8.2014 which was issued by respondent No. 2 2. To re-examine the entire candidates fairly, they are selected according to the advertisement dated 5.11.2012 for the post of cleaner in Central Bank of India. 3. To call the entire record of selection process dated 11.1.2013. 4. To direct the respondents they are re-examine of the selection process and found that petitioner's is liable for the post of question then immediately issued the appointment letter to the petitioner's without causing any delay or the selections of the respondents No. 4 to 13 is not a legally then immediately cancelled to the all without causing any delay. 5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioners which may also be given in the interest of justice. 2. This is second visit of the petitioners to this Court against the impugned selection. Petitioners earlier filed W.P.No. 2677/13 which was disposed of on 24.2.2014 by permitting the petitioners to approach the competent authority of the Bank who will consider and decide the representation. In turn, the petitioners preferred representation Annexure P-5 which is rejected by impugned order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P-1). 3. Shri Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold submissions. Firstly, the ground raised in para-5 of the representation Annexure P-5 have not been considered while passing the impugned order. Secondly, during pendency of the case, respondent No. 5 was terminated from service by order dated 13.6.2016 (Annexure P-7) filed with I.A.No. 11163/17 which shows that selection process was vitiated. 4. Per contra, Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the other side supported the impugned order. He submits that the grounds raised in the said representations were dealt with and decided by a reasoned order dated 4.8.2014. The petitioners participated in the selection process without raising any objection and, therefore, they are estopped now and cannot raise the objections. Reliance is placed on (2009)3 SCC-227AmlanJyotiBorooah v. State of Assam, (2011)1 SCC 150 Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2010)12 SCC 576 Manish Kumar Shani v. State of Bihar, (2014) 1 SCC-161 Central Electricity Supply v. Dhobei Sahoo and (2013)1 SCC-501 Rajesh Awasthy v. Nand Lal Jaiswal. 5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 6. 5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. So far the first contention is concerned, it is based on para-5 of the representation (Annexure P-5). In this para, petitioners have raised following objections ;(1) the selection was not conducted as per para-3-A of the advertisement; (2) the respondents have not assigned any reason for their non-selection and (3) how, Shri Hemant Kushwaha was found eligible for grant of selection at the cost of petitioner who possess all essential qualifications/ eligibility is not shown. 8. It is seen that in the impugned order, the respondents have reproduced the relevant clause, namely, 3-A of the advertisement. This reproduced clause makes it clear that it is only an eligibility condition and the Bank, as a one time and final measure, permitted the temporary/casual employees to participate in the selection process. On a specific question asked from the Bench, Shri Chourasia fairly admitted that all the petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process. Thus, I am unable to hold that clause-3-A of the advertisement has been violated. 9. This is trite law that the writ Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry to decide the validity of selection unless specific grounds are raised showing the illegality. This Court is not obliged to examine as to why petitioners were not selected and other private respondents were selected. If petitioners were aggrieved by their selection, they should have filed necessary documents showing that they were more eligible, meritorious or having preferential right of selection qua those persons. In absence of any such material, no interference can be made on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations. 10. So far the second ground is concerned, the document dated 13.6.2016 (Annexure P-7) shows that one candidate was later on terminated because his documents were found to be fabricated. On the basis of this document, no inference can be drawn that all selected candidates were having similar fabricated documents or selection process was vitiated. Apart from this, the judgments cited by Shri Pandey have a common string that if a person participate in the selection without any demur, he cannot raise the eye-brows after declaration of the result wherein he is declared as a unsuccessful candidate. 11. Apart from this, the judgments cited by Shri Pandey have a common string that if a person participate in the selection without any demur, he cannot raise the eye-brows after declaration of the result wherein he is declared as a unsuccessful candidate. 11. For these cumulative reasons, I find no reason justification interfere in this petition. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.