Judgment : This writ application was moved on 26th September, 1995 when an interim order was granted by Altamas Kabir, J. directing that there will be an Interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the examination already conducted till two weeks after vacation, if effect of such examination had not already been given. There is no dispute that the sail interim order still continues. 2. Subsequently, the private respondent Sri Pranab Kumar Roy filed an application for addition of party. This application was allowed. Sri Roy also filed an application for vacating the interim order granted by this Court. By an order dated 24th February, 1997, N.K. Bhattacharyya, J. (as His Lordship then was) treated the application for vacating the interim order as an affidavit in-opposition to the writ petition and thereafter directed the writ petitioner to file affidavit-In-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondent. The wit petition was directed to be listed for bearing under the heading 'to be mentioned' on 4th March, 1997 and the hearing of the writ petition is now being taken up. 3. The writ petitioner sat for a selection test which was held for recruitment in the post of Secretary to Gram Panchayat which fell vacant as per sanction of the Government of West Bengal. A decision was taken by the Government to fill up the said post of Secretary to the Gram Panchayat. By a Memo being No. 23761/Panch/2A-18/78 dated 23rd October, 1978 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal laid down a procedure for filling the post of Secretary to the Gram Panchayat. The relevant portion of the said Memo dated 23rd October, 1978 may be reproduced below:- "The names of the eligible candidates should be obtained from the local Employment Exchanges in respect of the Blocks concerned where such vacancies exist. The names of all such candidates should then be scrutinised at the Block level by a Selection Committee consisting of the Sub Divisional Officer concerned as Chairman, District Panchayat Officer, M.L.A. or MLAs (not being Ministers) of the Block concerned, Sabhapati of the concerned Panchayat Samiti as Members and the Block Development Officer as Convenor. The Committee should also include a representative of a Minister where the Minister is the M.L.A. of the Block concerned. The candidates recommended by the Selection Committee will then be appointed by the Director of Panchayats, West Bengal." 4. The Committee should also include a representative of a Minister where the Minister is the M.L.A. of the Block concerned. The candidates recommended by the Selection Committee will then be appointed by the Director of Panchayats, West Bengal." 4. From the above, it appears that a candidate should be examined by a Selection Committee which shall consist of Sub Divisional Officer concerned as Chairman, District Panchayat Officer, M.L.A. or M.L.As (not being Ministers) of the Block concerned, Sabhapati of the concerned Panchayat Samiti as Members and the Block Development Officer as onvenor. From the aforesaid, it can be said that the District Panchayat Officer may be a Member of such Selection Committee. Mr. Mitra on behalf of the writ petitioner after taking me through the proceedings before the Selection Committee, contends that the said Selection Committee which had taken the written test was not constituted with the District Panchayat Officer as Member. Therefore, the entire selection by such Selection Committee must be held to be null and avoid. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Mitra that only because one of the Member of the Selection Committee could not be present, the entire procedure for selection must be held to be bad in law. There is no dispute that all the other Members of the Selection Committee were present and the examination for selection was held in their presence. That apart, I do not find anything from the writ petition from which it can be said that the writ petitioner had ever raised any objection as to the eligibility of the Selection Committee without the District Panchayat Officer to held such examination. That being the position, I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Mitra. 5. The second question that Is raised by Mr. Mitra, appearing for the writ petitioner, Is that In view of the decisions taken by a meeting of the Selection Committee for selection of Gram panchayat Secretaries of Kurchi-Shibpur and Horali-Udaynarayanpur that the written test shall comprise of 75 marks which shall be divided in the following manner: Bengali-20, English-20 and Arithmetics -35, but, from the examination papers it appears that the markings made in respect of Bengali paper and English paper were 20 each and Arithmetics 25; this basis of allotment of marks on different subjects was wrong, Mr. Mitra submitted that the examination held on the basis of such marking must be held to be bad in law. On this score also I am unable to agree with Mr. Mitra. The writ petitioner never protested against such marking and in fact sat for the selection test and was found eligible for appearing in the oral interview before the Selection Committee. 6. The last submission of Mr. Mitra is In respect of decision No.4 as taken by the Selection Committee in the meeting which is as follows :- "4. Candidates who would secure in total 22 marks in written test would be declared qualified and would be called for oral inter-view. List of qualified candidates only (not with marks) will be published in the Notice Board." 7. Mr. Mitra, relying on the decision No.4 submits that the list of the qualified candidates not having been published In the Notice Board before the oral interview was taken, the selection made on the bash of such oral interview cannot be said to be legal. Again at the risk of repetition I say that the writ petitioner became successful in the selection test and without protest has appeared before the Selection Committee for an oral interview. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot now turn back and say in view of decision No. 4 the entire selection of the Selection Committee cannot be accepted. 8. Mr. Bose has rightly placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in tae case of (i) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1043 wherein the Apex Court of our country has held that a writ petitioner who has challenged the validity of a competitive examination as not held as per law cannot do so as he has appeared In the said examination without protest. No other submission bas been made by Mr. Mitra in support of this writ petition. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Interim order, if there be any, is vacated. Urgent certified xerox copy. If applied for, be supplied expeditiously.