JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellants who were not parties in writ application after obtaining leave from this Court. The appeal was also filed with 234 days' delay which was also condoned. 2. The fact of the case in short is that in the month of January 1995 names of twenty candidates including the appellants herein were sponsored by the local Employment Exchange for the purpose of appointment in the post of Clerk in Bankura Junior High School and thereafter the said candidates appeared in the Interview on November 29, 1995 at 11 a m. pursuant to the letters issued by the Secretary, Managing Committee of the said school. It is the case of the appellants that at the time when they appeared before the Selection Board for Interview, they found one candidate whose name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange appeared there for Interview and for that the appellants refused to appear in the Interview and a letter to that effect was given by them to the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school. In the letter addressed to the Secretary it was stated that they were the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and as because the Managing Committee had allowed one candidate (the respondent No. 1 in this appeal) whose name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they refused to appear in the interview and left the school. Consequent upon such refusal by the appellant whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange did not appear in the interview and only the respondent No.1 Brojo Gopal Biswas appeared and was selected in the interview and his name was forwarded to the District Inspector of School concerned for approval. Ultimately the said panel was approved and the said Brojo Gopal Biswas was given appointment in the post of Clerk. Thereafter it is stated that in December 1995 the appellants came to know that Brojo Gopal filed a writ application before this Court whereupon an order was passed on May. 7, 1995 and on the basis of the said order he was allowed to appear in the interview Against the said order of the learned trial Judge the appellants filed an application for leave to appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. 3. Mr. 7, 1995 and on the basis of the said order he was allowed to appear in the interview Against the said order of the learned trial Judge the appellants filed an application for leave to appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. 3. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants stated that the writ petitioner has obtained the order by commission of fraud in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was never appointed as a clerk of the said school, but the learned trial Judge passed an Order that since the writ petitioner was working in the said school as a clerk since 1993 his case should also be considered along with the other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange by the Selection Committee for the said post of clerk. This according to Mr. Bose, was a fraud in view of the fact that subsequently a Division Bench of this Court presided over by S.B. Sinha, J and S.N Chakraborty, J. (as His Lordship then was) on March 7, 1996 passed an order directing the District inspector of Schools (S.E), 24-Pargenas (North) to submit a report with regard to the matter after making independent verification and upon taking into consideration the entire materials on record placed before him by the school authorities as well as by the appellants as to whether the writ petitioner was working as a clerk in the school since 1993 or not. 4. It appears that Sri B.K. Mukherjee, the District inspector of Schools (S.E.). 24-Parganas (North) submitted his report, dated March 27, 1996 and In the report the said District Inspector of Schools stated as hereunder :".........It is not clear to this office how Sri Brojo Gopal Biswas obtained this order from the Hon'ble High Court directing him to allow appearing before the interview in the post of a clerk. The panel prepared by the school authority with Brojo Gopal Biswas was approved in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court........." In the Said report it was stated that service of the writ petitioner Brojo Gopal since 1993 was not authorised service and the said service could not be accepted as valid service rendered by him. Relying upon die said report Mr. Bose submitted that the order of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside. 5. Relying upon die said report Mr. Bose submitted that the order of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside. 5. A Case was made out by Brojo Gopal Biswas in the writ petition that he had been serving in the school since 1993 and accordingly his service should be regularised as a Clerk of the said school and the authority concerned should approve his appointment and pay full salary and allowances as admissible under the law to him and alternatively he has prayed for necessary direction upon the school authorities to allow him to appear before the Selection Committee for the purpose of Interview for the past of Clerk in the said school. 6. Admittedly, it is nobody's case that the petitioner in the writ application had any authorised service and the service rendered by him was authorised and irregular and that the only question is whether the learned Judge was wrong in directing the Selection Committee to consider the case of the writ petitioner-opposite party along with other candidates when his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 7. The Supreme Court in the case Excise Superintendent, Malkapatanns v. K.B.N. Viawashara Rao. AIR 1996 SCW 3979 has clearly held that it is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the names sponsored. though their names fire either registered or are waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange'. The Supreme Court has observed further that in addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment, should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or annouance on Radio, Television and employment news bulletins ; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted fair play would be sub-served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. If this procedure is adopted fair play would be sub-served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court it could not be held that the learned trial Judge was wrong in directing to consider the case of the writ petitioner though his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with the candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 8. It is the question of eligibility of the candidate having proper qualification and the process of selection should be to select a qualified and better candidate for the post. In this case, the writ petitioner's case for 'regularisation of his service was rejected by the learned trial Judge and on the Contrary the learned Judge simply directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner along with other candidates on the ground he was working in the said school. Since the question of eligibility of the writ petitioner was not considered by the learned Judge, in that event the question of regularisation of service does not and cannot arise at all. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge bas only directed the case of the writ petitioner to be considered along with other eligible candidates following the norms and procedure of the recruitment rules framed in this behalf. 9. Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent writ petitioner stated that the appellants have no locus standi to file this appeal in view of the fact that though the names of the appellants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for interview, ultimately they have decided not to appear in the Selection and have abandoned their right for being considered for selection and accordingly they cannot thereafter resort what they have voluntarily surrendered ; or in other words they cannot approbate which they have reprobated. 10. In this connection, Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the writ petition-respondent relied on two passages from the Book Spencer Bowar & Turner on Estoppel by representation'. In Paragraph 55 of the said Book It was stated that 'It is well-established that under' certain conditions silence or inaction may constitute a representation, as much a' positive language or conduct, for the purpose of an estoppel'. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the writ petition-respondent relied on two passages from the Book Spencer Bowar & Turner on Estoppel by representation'. In Paragraph 55 of the said Book It was stated that 'It is well-established that under' certain conditions silence or inaction may constitute a representation, as much a' positive language or conduct, for the purpose of an estoppel'. In Paragraph 318 It was provided that a party is estopped, as against other, to alter his position to his detriment the said party is estopped, as against the other party from thereafter resorting to the course of action which he bas thus intimated his intention of relinquishing, dispensing with or 'waiving'. This rule has been applied to instruments to relation to transacting and to proceedings in litigation, in the manner now to be described and illu trated'. 11. In the instant case the appellants in their letter addressed to the Secretary to the Managing Committee of the School on November 29, 1995 stated that they would not appear in the Interview as a candidate whose name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange was called for interview But, It appears that the candidature of the writ petitioner was considered on the basis of the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Further it appears that he appellants were not parties before the learned trial Judge and accordingly we are of the view that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge could not be set aside or declared illegal on the basis of the report obtained from a District Inspector of Schools concerned which is neither a piece of an evidence nor an affidavit and on a subsequent report obtained from a petty Officer of the State Government the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge could not be set aside. We are of the view that whether the writ petitioner was serving in the school or not is immaterial for the purpose of selection and consideration of the case of the writ petitioner inasmuch as in the selection process no waitage or preference is given for a candidate who had past experience. We are of the view that whether the writ petitioner was serving in the school or not is immaterial for the purpose of selection and consideration of the case of the writ petitioner inasmuch as in the selection process no waitage or preference is given for a candidate who had past experience. It is not the case that the writ petitioner bas passed for regularization of his irregular service and if there is any irregular service of the writ petitioner that does not disqualify him from appearing in the interview In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Excise Superintendent's case (supra). In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court it is not a law that a selection can be made solely on the basis of the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the learned trial Judge had only directed to consider the Case of the writ petitioner along with other candidates whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If the appellants appeared in the interview and their cases were not considered or wrongly eliminated, the District Inspector of Schools concerned could look Into the matter and for any irregularity or illegality in the selection process, and this Court could have interfered with. But, if the Party voluntarily abandones his right and chooses not to appear in the interview he cannot file any appeal allegation that their case for appointment should be considered by setting aside the selection already made when all the appellant voluntarily refused to appear at the interview. 12. Accordingly, we are of the view that the said report of the District Inspector of Schools concerned cannot be treated as a pan of record as it is well settled principle that even an additional evidence can only be taken into consideration by applying the principles laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and if the said report is not a part of the record, the Division Bench which is deciding the appeal and the appeal being a condemnation of the writ proceeding and taking into consideration the report submitted by an. Officer stating the fact which is not proved and which cannot be treated as a part of record. Officer stating the fact which is not proved and which cannot be treated as a part of record. The principle of exclusiveness of records has to be maintained. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the submission, of Mr. Bose that on the basis of the report obtained from the department who bad appeared before the learned trial Judge and who was a party to the decision which was delivered by the learned trial judge, the order of the learned trial Judge should be set aside. We find that the said District Inspector of Schools concerned did not raise his voice before the learned trial Judge nor say anything before the leaned trial Judge but filed a report stating that be was surprised to see bow the learned trial Judge has passed such an order. We seriously depricate this practice. We do not find that the judgment of the learned Judge is vitiated by fraud or misstatement and/or anything which had vitiated the order of the learned trial Judge. In the interview all the candidates had right to appear, but since some had abandoned their right to appear in the said interview, they cannot ......... lost their right by filing no appeal after a lapse of years and cannot challenge the validity of the judgment. Since in the interview they did not appear ..........................................and accordingly, we do not find that any of the rights of the appellants has been interfered with by the order of the learned trial Judge. We do not find any marits in this appeal and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Nand, J.: I agree.