D. K. SETH, J. Since the facts of both these cases are inter-connected with the consent of the parties both these writ peti tions are taken up together. 2. Mr. Ranbir Singh, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Jagdeo Singh Chauhan in Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997. Mr. K. N. Saxena appears for the Committee of Management being Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997. Mr. A. K. Yadav appears on behalf of U. P. Secondary Education Ser vice Commission. Mr. I. R. Singh appears on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain, petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997. 3. I have heard all the Counsel at length who had addressed the Court on the merits of both the writ petitions. 4. The facts of the case are as follows: A notice was published for selection of Head Master by the Commission. In the advertisement, the name of the school Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Mad hyamik Vidyala, Narhat, Lalitpur was mis spelt as Sri Kshatrapal Uchchatar Mad hyamik Vidyala, Narhat. On this mis spelling in the name of the school in the advertisement, the Committee of Management did not allow the petitioner who was selected by the Commission for being appointed on the post of Head Master of the school. Therefore, the petitioner Jagdeo Singh Chauhan had filed the Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997. The Committee of Management had filed counter-affidavit to this writ petition and had opposed the case of the petitioner. While Mr. A. K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Commission had supported the case of the petitioner. The stand taken by the Committee of Management is that there was no advertisement for selection of Head Master of the said school. There fore, the selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, such a stand has been taken. A reading of paragraph 4 shows that the name of the schools is Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Higher Secondary School, Narhat, district Lalitpur but in the adver tisement the name was mis-printed as Sri Kshatrapal Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat. In the counter-affidavit it has been pointed out that in Narhat there is no school named Kshatrapal Higher Secondary School. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that Sri Chhatrasal Panchayat might have been mis- spelt as Sri Kshatrapal. 5. In the counter-affidavit it has been pointed out that in Narhat there is no school named Kshatrapal Higher Secondary School. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that Sri Chhatrasal Panchayat might have been mis- spelt as Sri Kshatrapal. 5. In Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997 moved by the Committee of Management and Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain a case has been made out in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that on the record of the Commis sion, the name of the petitioners Institu tion was not mentioned though they were intimated that an interview would be held on 4th May, 1996 for selection of Head Master of the said School by the District Inspector of Schools. Such intimation was described by Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain to have been made under mis-conception. Though statements have been made in directly to show that petitioners were not given opportunity to participate in the in terview, but in fact no specific statement has been made that pursuant to such in timation, the petitioners could not par ticipate in the interview or the petitioner was refused participation in the interview. In the absence of such specific statement, a normal presumption would be that the petitioner Suresh Kumar Jain was asked to appear in the interview on 4th May, 1996. If he had not participated in the interview, he had done some at his peril. If he had participated in the interview, in that event, he now cannot challenge the wrong spell ing of the Institution in the advertisement in view of the principle laid down in the cases ofarun Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1984 (1) UPLBEC 477, and Om Prakash Shukla v. A. K. Shuk la, 1986 Lab. I. C. 790, wherein it has been held that after being unsuccessful, a can didate cannot turn round and challenge the selection on certain technical grounds or on the ground of absence of authority or otherwise. 6. Mr. Yadav had produced copies of the records of the Commission relating to the selection of the Head Master of Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat. It appears that by a communication dated 5th Oc tober, 1993 the Deputy Director, Jhansi Mandal forwarded the particulars of the two seniormost teachers of Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat to the Secretary, U. P. Secondary Education Service Commis sion in the requisition form. It appears that by a communication dated 5th Oc tober, 1993 the Deputy Director, Jhansi Mandal forwarded the particulars of the two seniormost teachers of Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat to the Secretary, U. P. Secondary Education Service Commis sion in the requisition form. By another letter dated 20th April, 1996, the Deputy Director had forwarded the particulars of the two seniormost teachers to the Secretary of the Service Commission for appropriate steps. The said letter shows that the character roll and service book of Sri Suresh Kumar Jain was annexed as Annexure II to the said letter. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the Manager of Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat, Lalitpur. Mr. Yadav had also produced the memo of interview in which the par ticulars of the interview of Sri Suresh Kumar Jain have been recorded. It ap pears that the said Sri Suresh Kumar Jain had deposited the interview fee of Rs. 67 through receipt No. 21/148. The said docu ment shows that Sri Jain had participated in the interview. 7. Thus, having participated in the interview and having been unsuccessful, it is not open to Sri S. K. Jain to challenge the said interview only on the ground that in the advertisement the name of the school was mis-printed as Sri Kshatrapal Uch chatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya instead of Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat. But in the advertisement Region Jhansi, district Lalitpur, Narhat was also mentioned. In view of the statement made in paragraph 6 of Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997 by Sri S. K. Jain to the extent that there is no Institution named Sri Kshatrapal Uch chatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat and the petitioner (S. K. Jain) having par ticipated in the interview, it is presumed that the petitioner (S. K. Jain) had under stood that the name of the school Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Mad hyamik Vidyalaya was mis-printed in the advertisement. The allegation that in the record of the Commission the name of Chhatrasal Zila Parishad Uchchatar Mad hyamik Vidyalaya was absent, appears to be misconceived or a mis-statement since from the record of the Commission, name ly, the letters dated 5th October, 1993 and 20th April, 1996, it appears that the name of the school was recorded as Sri Chhatrasal Zila Parishad, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhat. Mr. Mr. Yadav asserts that in the record of the Commis sion the name of the school was correctly recorded and there is no mis-spelling in the records of the Commissioner. The par ticipation of the petitioner (S. K. Jain) in the interview itself shows that he was aware of the said situation. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the statement made in paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of the Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997 as has been sought to be supported by Mr. I. R. Singh to advance the claim of Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain. 8. At the same time, the school authority had itself forwarded the service book and the character roll of Sri S. K. Jain and Sri Jagdishwar Prasad Sharma being the two senior most teachers for being con sidered for appointment as Head Masters of the said Institution, to the Secretary, U. P. Secondary Education Service Com mission by the letter dated 20th April, 1996. The District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur had also forwarded the requisi tion for appointment of Head Master in the prescribed form, which was trans mitted by the Deputy Director of Educa tion, Jhansi Region to the Service Com mission. Thus, it shows that the school authority was also aware of the selection of the Head Master who had sough to take advantage of the mis-printing of the name of the school Sri Chhatrasal as Sri Kshatrapal in the advertisement. The stand taken by the school authority appears to be very unfortunate since they had taken the stand only on the basis of the mis-printing in the advertisement through they were aware that the selection was being made for that very school, namely, Sri Chhatrasal when they themselves had admitted that there was no school named Sri Kshatrapal at Narhat and when in the records of the Commission and in their correspondence the name of the School has been correctly spelt. Thus, the stand taken either by the Committee of Manage ment or by Sri Suresh Kumar Jain cannot be sustained. The mis-print in the adver tisement does not alter the situation if all the parties have understood the fact there of. After having participated in the process of selection, it is not open to an unsuccess ful candidate to challenge the process of selection on the ground of mis-printing of the name of the school in the advertise ment. The mis-print in the adver tisement does not alter the situation if all the parties have understood the fact there of. After having participated in the process of selection, it is not open to an unsuccess ful candidate to challenge the process of selection on the ground of mis-printing of the name of the school in the advertise ment. The participation in interview leads to a presumption that despite such mis printing the candidate understood that the recruitment was being made for that par ticular school and he could decipher the correct name of the school mis-printed in the advertisement. On account of such participation a candidate does not suffer any prejudice due to the mis-printing of the name of the school in the advertise ment. Neither the candidate has been denied nor he has been deprived of his right to participate and to be considered because of such mis-printing in the adver tisement. The mis- printing was triffle and technical in the matter. No capital could be made out of it. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition No. 16217 of 1997 succeeds and is allowed ac cordingly. The Committee of Manage ment being Respondent No. 2 in Writ Peti tion No. 16217 of 1997 is, thereby, directed to allow the petitioner Mr. Jagdeo Singh Chauhan to join the post of Head Master as soon he reports for joining the same. 10. Let a writ of mandamus do ac cordingly issue. The question of payment of salary to the petitioner shall be con sidered in accordance with law so far the period during which he was prevented from joining his duty by the appropriate authority, within a period of three months from the date the petitioner makes an ap propriate representation before the con cerned respondents. 11. Writ Petition No. 34982 of 1997 is dismissed. No cost. Order accordingly. .