JUDGMENT : 1. By invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the instant writ petition has been preferred by two petitioners seeking inter alia cancellation of the entire process of selection that was undertaken pursuant to an Advertisement dated 28.11.2014 for filling up of 54 [fifty-four] nos. vacancies in the of post of Excise Constable in the Department of Excise, Government of Assam, and also for a direction to the respondent authorities in the Excise Department, Government of Assam to hold a fresh selection process for filling up of those 54 [fifty-four] nos. of vacancies in the post of Excise Constable. 2. An Advertisement was published by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Excise, Assam on 28.11.2014 for filling up of 54 [fifty-four] nos. of vacancies in the post of Excise Constable under the establishment of the respondent no. 2. The Advertisement mentioned that the post of Excise Constable would carry a Pay Scale of Rs. 5,200/--Rs. 20,200/-[PB-2] with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-. The educational qualifications prescribed in the Advertisement for the post of Excise Constable was minimum High School Leaving Certificate Examination [HSLC] or its equivalent from any recognized University/Board. The Advertisement had further laid down the procedure of selection for the post of Excise Constable. As per the Advertisement, there would a physical test followed by the viva-voce. In the physical test, the male candidates would be required to run 1,500 metres in 5 [five] minutes and the female candidates would have to complete the running of 800 metres in 4 [four] minutes. There would be no written test for the candidates aspiring for the post of Excise Constable. The successful candidates in the physical test would be called for the viva-voce. The Advertisement also prescribed about the physical attributes to be possessed by the male candidates and the female candidates for the post of Excise Constable. 3. In response to the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014, both the petitioners submitted their candidatures. While the petitioner no. 1 had applied for the post of Excise Constable from Kamrup District the petitioner no. 2 had applied for the post of Excise Constable from Barpeta District. Call letters dated 22.04.2015 and 20.03.2015 were issued to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively to appear in the physical fitness test/running test. In the call letter issued to the petitioner no. 2 had applied for the post of Excise Constable from Barpeta District. Call letters dated 22.04.2015 and 20.03.2015 were issued to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively to appear in the physical fitness test/running test. In the call letter issued to the petitioner no. 1, he was assigned Roll no. 2-GU-3758 and he was asked to appear in the physical fitness test to be held at Sarusajai Stadium on 24.05.2015. In the call letter issued to the petitioner no. 2, he was assigned Roll no. 1-BG-08720 and he was asked to appear in the physical fitness test to be held at Birjhora Higher Secondary School on 05.05.2015. 4. It was the case of the petitioners that on receipt of the call letters, the two petitioners appeared at the respective notified venues before the respondent authorities on the dates scheduled for the physical fitness tests in terms of the call letters and completed 1,500 metres of running within the stipulated time limits. The petitioners had asserted that after the running, they were physically checked along with other candidates and both of them were found fit without any deficiency and as such, they became eligible to appear in the viva-voce test. The petitioners were surprised when the respondent authorities published a list containing the Roll nos. of the candidates who were called for the viva-voce test to be held from 17.08.2015 on wards. The Roll nos. of the two petitioners did not figure in the list. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner no. 2 had approached this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4657/2015. There was another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4069/2015 of similar nature, preferred by three other candidates who appeared in the physical fitness test held for the recruitment of Excise Constable pursuant to the same Advertisement. The two writ petitions, that is, W.P.[C] no. 4657/2015 and W.P.[C] no. 4069/2015 came up for consideration on 14.08.2015. After hearing the parties, the Court was of the view that it would be very difficult for the Court to enter into adjudication of a dispute of such nature. The Court had, however, expressed that nonetheless for doing complete justice, since the petitioners had knocked the doors of the Court complaining of injustice, it would be apposite if the respondent authorities would reconsider the case of the petitioners, if necessary by holding a fresh race. The Court had, however, expressed that nonetheless for doing complete justice, since the petitioners had knocked the doors of the Court complaining of injustice, it would be apposite if the respondent authorities would reconsider the case of the petitioners, if necessary by holding a fresh race. This Court was of the view that if such a decision was contemplated, adequate time should be given not only to the petitioners but to such other candidates who might have similar grievances like those of the petitioners in the two writ petitions and conduct of such fresh race should be taken within 31.08.2015. With such observations, the two writ petitions were disposed by an order dated 14.08.2015. 5. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities had asked the petitioners in the two writ petitions which included the petitioner no. 2, and also the other candidates which included the petitioner no. 1, to appear in a physical fitness test scheduled on 25.08.2015. The petitioner no. 1 was handed Bib no. 391 and the petitioner no. 2 was handed Bib no. 390 on that day. After participating in the physical fitness test held on 25.08.2015, the two petitioners herein had approached the Court by preferring a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5591/2015 with a grievance that though the physical fitness test of which running was a part, was conducted on 25.08.2015 the petitioners were kept waiting in the Sarusajai Stadium from 10-00 a.m. to 1-00 p.m. and because of heat and humidity, the petitioners could not complete the running/race within the stipulated time limit of 5 [five] minutes. Another grievance was raised by the petitioners to the effect that they were forced to run bare-foot thereafter in the Stadium which affected their performances. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5591/2015 was taken up for consideration on 18.09.2015. The Court noted that on 25.08.2015, all the candidates who appeared on that date, were asked to run bare-foot. The Court also took note of the facts that the Sarusajai Stadium is of international standard having synthetic track for athletes and for the physical fitness test/race on 25.08.2015, the said synthetic track was used. The Court noted that on 25.08.2015, all the candidates who appeared on that date, were asked to run bare-foot. The Court also took note of the facts that the Sarusajai Stadium is of international standard having synthetic track for athletes and for the physical fitness test/race on 25.08.2015, the said synthetic track was used. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners and all the other candidates participated in the physical fitness test/race on 25.08.2015 in the similar manner and in the said physical fitness test/race both the petitioners failed to qualify, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same was accordingly dismissed by an order dated 18.09.2015. 6. Thereafter, the two petitioners had once again approached this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 218/2016 but they withdrew the writ petition on 22.01.2016 with the liberty to file afresh. In the backdrop of the afore-mentioned events, this writ petition has been preferred with the aforesaid prayers on 09.02.2016. 7. I have heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department, Assam for all the respondents. 8. In this writ petition, the petitioners have contended about commission of irregularities and illegalities in the selection process conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners’ prime grievance is that there were seven nos. of candidates who did not appear in the physical fitness test/running at any point of time but their names figured in a select list dated 31.07.2015 and those seven nos. of candidates were called to appear in the viva-voce. 9. Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department has, at first, referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 and has submitted that after completion of the physical fitness test/running and viva-voce, the respondent no. 2 had published a notification on 01.03.2016 whereby the Roll nos. of the successful candidates were published and those selected candidates were asked to collect their appointment letters from the office of the Superintendent of Excise of the respective districts. His first submission is that the selected candidates, more particularly, the 7 [seven] candidates against whom the petitioners have made allegations, are not impleaded as party– respondents in the writ petition. With regard to the allegations about non-participation of those seven candidates, Mr. His first submission is that the selected candidates, more particularly, the 7 [seven] candidates against whom the petitioners have made allegations, are not impleaded as party– respondents in the writ petition. With regard to the allegations about non-participation of those seven candidates, Mr. Pathak has submitted that those seven candidates, named by the petitioners, participated in the physical fitness test/running and they were declared qualified. It is also his submission that after the declaration of the results of the selection process it is not open for the two petitioners who were unsuccessful, to turn around and raise objection in respect of the same selection process. 10. I have duly considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 11. It has already emerged from the discussion made above that the two writ petitioners were found unsuccessful in the selection process undertaken pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014 for filling up of 54 [fifty-four] nos. of vacancies in the post of Excise Constable in the establishment of the respondent no. 2. The Advertisement had prescribed that the male candidates had to complete 1,500 metres of running within 5 [five] minutes for the post of Excise Constable. From the order dated 18.09.2015 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5519/2015, it is already found that the two petitioners had failed to complete the physical fitness test of running of 1,500 metres within the stipulated time limit of 5 [five] minutes. After their failure to complete the physical fitness test/running within the stipulated time limit the two petitioners had approached this Court by the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5519/2015 with a grievance, but the same was not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners’ further participation in the selected process came to a halt with the result that they were unsuccessful candidates in so far the selection process initiated by the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014 is concerned. Thus, there is no dispute to the fact that the two petitioners were declared disqualified in the selection process. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners’ further participation in the selected process came to a halt with the result that they were unsuccessful candidates in so far the selection process initiated by the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014 is concerned. Thus, there is no dispute to the fact that the two petitioners were declared disqualified in the selection process. It is not disputed by the petitioners that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure of selection by specifically mentioning in the Advertisement that a male candidate if he failed to run 1,500 metres within the time limit of 5 [five] minutes, would be declared disqualified and would not be permitted to take further part in the selection process. It is a settled position of law that a candidate, who consciously takes part in the selection process, cannot turn around and question the very selection process. When the two petitioners were disqualified at the stage of physical fitness test, they are precluded from challenging the selection process held after the stage they were declared disqualified. 12. The writ petition is also found to be not maintainable on the ground of non-impleadment of the successful candidates. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the entire selection process conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.11.2014. The selection process was completed with the notification dated 01.03.2016 by declaring the results by notifying the Roll nos. of the candidates who were found successful in the selection process for the 54 [fifty-four] nos. of posts of Excise Constable so advertised. Though the writ petition was preferred on 09.02.2016, that is, before the declaration of the results by the notification dated 01.03.2016, the two petitioners during the period subsequent to 01.03.2016, that is, a period of about more than six years have not taken any steps to implead any of those candidates selected for 54 [fifty-four] nos. of posts of Excise Constable, more particularly, the seven nos. of selected candidates against whom they have brought allegations in this writ petition. In the event the present writ petition is to be allowed the persons likely to be affected are the 54 [fifty-four] nos. of selected candidates. of posts of Excise Constable, more particularly, the seven nos. of selected candidates against whom they have brought allegations in this writ petition. In the event the present writ petition is to be allowed the persons likely to be affected are the 54 [fifty-four] nos. of selected candidates. It is settled that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition without the persons who would be vitally effected by judgment before it as respondents or at-least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually and if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in [1984] 4 SCC 251. This being the settled legal position, non-impleadment of the selected candidates for the posts of Excise Constable, declared by the notification dated 01.03.2016, who have, in the meantime, joined in those posts and have been serving since then, is found as a fatal one and no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the instant writ petition because a writ petition challenging the selection and appointment to those 54 [fifty-four] nos. of posts without impleading the selected candidates is found to be not maintainable. 13. In view of above determination, this Court has found that there is no necessity to embark into the other aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having found that the present writ petition not maintainable for the reasons assigned on the afore-stated counts, the same is dismissed. No cost.