JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner a member of the Police Force of the State has challenged in this petition his own non-selection and the selection of the respondent Nos. 6 to 24 on the ground that the selection process was not fair and the Selection Board was not legally constituted. 2. According to the petitioner under the Scheme of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Rules'), the Board which conducts the examination has to he the same and there was no provision for change in the constitution of the Board during the process of selection. According to the petitioner apart from being violative of the statutory Rules, the change in constitution of the Board in the mid-stream violated the principles of natural justice also. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 3 was removed from the Board because of certain complaints and if the complaints had some force, it required setting aside of the entire stages of selection process in which the respondent No. 3 participated and it new Board should have started afresh. The petitioner also contends that even in the reconstituted Board, all the Members were not present during the second part of the test and on another day, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 had left the test to attend some other work. It is alleged that the test was conducted by only one Member, the respondent No. 5 and therefore the selection cannot be said to he a selection by a properly constituted Selection Board. 3. According to the respondents, a Selection Board was constituted under Rule 24(3) of the Rules by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner appointing Shri V. K. Hansukha, Superintendent of Police, Ganganager as Chairman, Shri Madhu Sudan Singh, Depury Superintendent of Police. C.O., City Ganganagar and Shri Dev Dutta Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. O.. Ratangarh as Members. This Board was constituted on April 8, 1993. Written tests, were completed on April 11, 1983. After this was done, Shri V. K. Hansukha and Shri Madhu Sudan Singh were required to discharge duties in some arms burglary case at Sri Ganganagar and thereafter were busy in the arrangements for the Prime Minister's visit, the process of selection therefore did not make any progress. Written tests, were completed on April 11, 1983. After this was done, Shri V. K. Hansukha and Shri Madhu Sudan Singh were required to discharge duties in some arms burglary case at Sri Ganganagar and thereafter were busy in the arrangements for the Prime Minister's visit, the process of selection therefore did not make any progress. On July 6, 1983, the Board was reconstituted for out-door test and Interview by replacing Shri Dev Dutt Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ratangarh by Shri K. Bahadur Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh. The petitioner appeared for the out-door test and interview taken by a the Board and did not object to its reconstitution. It was contended that the written examination and out-door test and interview were two different stages of the selection process and it was neither necessary under the Rules nor under the principles of natural justice that examiners at these two different tests should be the same. It was also contended that as all the candidates for selection were examined at the written test as well as the out-door test and interviewed by the same Board, though one Member had changed at these two stages, there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner as all the candidates were treated equally. It was not a case where the petitioner appeared before the different Selection Board and other candidates appeared before some other Selection Board. It was further submitted that having taken the chance of being selected knowing fully well that the Selection Board had been reconstitute, the petitioner cannot now be allowed to challenge the constitution of the Selection Board. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Shyam Lal Mathur v. University of Udaipur, 1980 WLN (UC) 120 . This was a case where a person who was not a Member of the Selection Board as per the, Rules was invited to participate in the process of selection and deliberations of the Board as special invitee. It was for this reason that the process of selection was held to he vitiated by this Court in that case. It is not the case here. It was for this reason that the process of selection was held to he vitiated by this Court in that case. It is not the case here. Here is a person duly nominated to be the Member of the Selection Board and the only question raised in regarding the change of a Member of the Selection Board during the process of selection. Dr. Shyam Lal's case (supra), has therefore no application to the present case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K.K. Kalyan Raman, 1992 (6) Serv LR 727 : 1992 Lab IC 1800 . It was observed in the circumstances that procedural fairness is the main requirement in an administrative action. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided, by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 7. In the case before me, it has not been demonstrated as to what was the unfairness in the procedure. Actually, even the reconstitution of the Board was for all candidates the same, it was not a case where different candidates have been judged by different Selection Board. As already observed, one Selection Board completed one stage of examination and after that stage the Board was reconstituted by replacement of one Member. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has received unfair treatment. 8. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, AIR 1976 SC 2428 : 1976 Lab IC 1546 . In paragraph 15 of this decision, the Supreme Court has observed that refused to go into the question of bias on the ground that the appellant in that case knowing all the relevant facts did not appear for the interview and at the time of the interview raised not even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant in that case seem to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having favourable recommendation From it. Having done so, it was not open for him to turn round and question the constitution of the Selection Committee. 9. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant in that case seem to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having favourable recommendation From it. Having done so, it was not open for him to turn round and question the constitution of the Selection Committee. 9. The respondents also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117 . It was observed in this case that the Court's Role in such matter is limited and it does not function as an appellate authority over the selection done by an expert body unless it is shown by cogent and convincing evidence that the selection was biased, capricious, whimsical or arbitrary and the, petitioner had been the victim of bias. 10. Examining in the light of the aforesaid case law, this petition has no force. The petitioner has taken a chance of being selected by the reconstituted Selection Board and did not object to its constitution immediately after appearing at the out-door test and interview. Moreover, in matters challenging the selection on the ground of invalidity in the constitution of the Selection Board, the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 303 of 1985 Shiv Lal v. Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalore and eleven other appeals, decided on September 8, 1987 , has held that the selected candidates cannot be made to suffer because of invalidity or irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Board. That case has been followed by me for an added reason of the applicability of de facto doctrine in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3654/91, Lokendra Shankar Nagar v. The Banswara Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Banswara, decided on July 29, 1994 . 11. For the aforesaid reason, the petition fails and it is dismissed. There shall, however be no or order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******