AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is made by one Homeopathy doctor and another Compounder purportedly working part time basis at a Grain Panehayai: known as Patharghata-II under Nadia District Zilla parisad. West Bengal purely on. voluntary basis subject to approval by the Zilla Parisad as available from the letter of the Gram Panchayet, 15th august 1997, being Arnnexure P-II to the writ petition. From Annexure p-5 and P-6 being letters dated 5th May, 1998 and -15th May, 1999 written by the Zilla Parisad to the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, directorate of Health and Family Welfare it appears that Zilla Parisad requested such authority to sanction for establishment of dispensaries proposed to be set up. According to the petitioners, they are working with the approval of the Zilla Parisad from 1998 when the respondents contended that the 'dispensaries proposed to be set up' does not mean dispensary was existing and the petitioners were working there. However, presently the same is not the issue before this Court in view of setting up of various dispensaries in the said Gram Panchayat on and from 1 st june, 2002 admittedly. However, for the purpose of filling up part-time posts of Homoeopathy Doctor and Compounder an interview was taken amongst various candidates including the petitioners on the basis of a notice of the Assistant Secretary of the Zilla Parisad, dated 6th September, 2002. Admittedly the interview was taken at the office of Chief Medical officer Health {cmoh ). The interviewers are CMOH himself, Karmadhakshya, janaswastha Adhikarik of the Zilla Parisad and the Deputy Secretary of such zilla parisad being an Executive. Admittedly Chief Medical Officer was considered to be the expert. The petitioners have participated in the selection but their candidatures were not considered to be fit and proper for the purpose of Doctor and Compounder on the part time basis in the said Gram Panchayat dispensary. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the process of selection of Homoeopathy Doctor and Compounder is wrong because there was no expert in the Selection Committee having prudent knowledge of Homoeopathy medicine. Moreover, the process of selection only by way of oral interview is running contrary to the transparency of the selection process. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the process of selection of Homoeopathy Doctor and Compounder is wrong because there was no expert in the Selection Committee having prudent knowledge of Homoeopathy medicine. Moreover, the process of selection only by way of oral interview is running contrary to the transparency of the selection process. Since the validity of the selection process is questioned here by the petitioners, their participation in the selection cannot be said to be nonest in the eye of law. Principles of acquiescence or waiver can be available only when the selection process is correct. If the very root of selection process is under challenge, the question of participation cannot put an embargo. ( 2 ) MR. Kamalesh Bhattacharya. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cited paragraph 10 of a judgement reported in AIR 1980 sc 2141 (J. P. Kulshrestha and Ors. vs. Allahabad University and Ors.)wherefrom I find that the Supreme Court held as follows: certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva vocie tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that courts insist, as the learned Single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the court is skeptical, the record of the selection proceedings, including the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he wrote: "so I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. ( 3 ) FROM paragraph 9 of AIR 2001 SC 152 (Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors.) I find that in the above judgment the Supreme Court once again held that vice of manipulation cannot be ruled out though interview undoubtedly is a significant factor in the matter of appointments. ( 3 ) FROM paragraph 9 of AIR 2001 SC 152 (Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors.) I find that in the above judgment the Supreme Court once again held that vice of manipulation cannot be ruled out though interview undoubtedly is a significant factor in the matter of appointments. It plays a strategic role but it also allows creeping in of a lacuna rendering the appointments illegitimate. ( 4 ) BY citing these two valuable judgments Mr. Bhattacharya concluded. his argument of this part by. saying that the same principle is applicable in their case. . ( 5 ) SO far the next point is concerned he said that a bench; of this court decided the issue of acquiescence or waiver. He referred paragraph 17 of the said judgment reported in 2001 (2) CHN 419 (Dr. Md, Ketab ali vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. ). From paragraph 17, I find that where the selection process is vitiated by illegality, principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application thereby following ratio of the judgment reported in 1997 (9) SCC 527 (Reg Kumar vs. Shakti Raj and Ors)in paragraph 1c of such judgment of the Supreme Court it appears that although the earlier view was accepted by the Supreme Court by holding that when one has taken chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection but when there is glaring illegalities the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiscence has no application. Although the case of the Supreme Court was based on factual matrix therein but the principle can be followed in the given case. ( 6 ) MR. Debasis Kar Gupta, learned Additional Government pleader contended that he should proceed on the question of waiver or acquiescence first and subject to such submission he will proceed to the question whether the viva voice test is good enough for the appointment of a part time Doctor and Compounder or not. He relied upon AIR 1976 sc 2428 (Dr. G. Sarana us. University of Lucknow and Ors. ). He relied upon AIR 1976 sc 2428 (Dr. G. Sarana us. University of Lucknow and Ors. ). In its paragraph 15 to establish that where a candidate for selection knowing fully well the relevant facts about the members of the Selection Board voluntarily appeared for interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Board and took a chance of favourable recommendation in his favour, it is not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the board when the decision was unfavourable to him. He said that catena of decisions are there in favour of such contention. He has given two of such references being para 3 of 1978 (2)slr 200 (K. R. Bapna vs. University of Udaipur and Ors.) and paragraph 19 of 1983 (1) SLR 109 (Balbir Singh, Constable and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. ). He further contended that none of the cases cited by mr. Bhattacharya are applicable in respect of a part time appointment. This is not a selection for admission of student or for permanent service. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for such selection. He has drawn my attention in paragraph 6, 9 and 12 of AIR 1998 SC 1470 (Siya Ram vs. Union of India and Ors. ). The relevant portion of paragraph 12 is quoted hereunder: the selection board consisted of high ranking officials, well versed with the requirements of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms had been laid for the selection board to follow. No fault can be found with the same. Apart from the objection that excessive marks had been allocated for viva voice, the appellant has been unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out. It is not for this court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview in a case like the present one. As noted above, at times for certain posts only interview is considered to be the best method for selection'. ( 7 ) IN reply Mr. Bhattacharya contended that in a public employment where the public exchequer is involved, there should not be any act on the part of the respondent authorities which may couch as a principle of unequal opportunities. As noted above, at times for certain posts only interview is considered to be the best method for selection'. ( 7 ) IN reply Mr. Bhattacharya contended that in a public employment where the public exchequer is involved, there should not be any act on the part of the respondent authorities which may couch as a principle of unequal opportunities. The prescription of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has to be followed. ( 8 ) IN my view the dispute is between reasonableness and transparency. I have come to know that there is no settled principle of law or prescribed norms for the purpose of filling up the post of homoeopathy Doctor and Compounder. It is a primitive stage of such type of appointment. Therefore, unless transparency is made much more effective at the primitive stage there will be every possibility of polluted atmosphere for the future. I cannot agree with the submission of Mr. Kargupta that as it is a case of part time appointment of the matured technical candidates to work as Homoeopathy Doctor and Compounder the principle of general mode of selection may not necessarily be followed. On the other hand it is to be remembered that in the grassroot level the expertisation and ability of the candidates is far more important for the purpose of safety and security of the public life. In the city life we are crossing through an age of money value in comparison to other values of life. But in the grassroot as yet value of life is far more important such people are really fighting for survival where either there is no Doctor or there is insufficient medical assistance to which the court can take judicial notice A system of Allopathic medicine is being discouraged by the Homoeopathy Doctors whereunder the Allopathy Doctors are laughing on that. score. There are mushroom growing of alternative medicine centres. Therefore, if a Homoeopathy Doctor or an Allopathy Doctor or a Doctor of alternative medicine is not correctly chosen there might be cause of public injury. How it will be selected ? It will be selected by an expert. Who will be expert a person who has expertise in the subject i. e. Homoeopathy medicine. Admittedly such expert was not present in the selection committee. Therefore, the entire selection is vitiated only on that score. How it will be selected ? It will be selected by an expert. Who will be expert a person who has expertise in the subject i. e. Homoeopathy medicine. Admittedly such expert was not present in the selection committee. Therefore, the entire selection is vitiated only on that score. A Chief Medical Officer Health (CMOH) in a district is normally a recognised Allopathic Doctor. He can have only knowledge in respect of the allopathy medicine and surgery. He cannot suggest the utilisation of Homoeopathy medicine i. e. its different doses and surgery if any. Nowhere it is stated that such CMOH was having knowledge in respect of both the medicines. The post of CMOH is an administrative post to control the all doctors, hospitals availability of such type of medicines in the district. The difference is so glaring about expertise of homoeopathy and Allopathy medicine under normal circumstances, a cmoh cannot be declared as an expert. Therefore, the selection was made without an expert which is bad in law. ( 9 ) SECONDLY, the only selection by way of interview has been discouraged by the Supreme Court and also High Courts on numerous occasions. It has been discouraged to avoid arbitrariness. However, there is no embargo in making selection following other mode as well as oral interview. Although it has stated that this is not the interview or selection for admission or permanent service so that strictness of selection will be followed, but, I am of the view that there are areas where the mode of selection must have to be strict. This is one of such areas. Normally in a case of selection there should be a process. Such process is to be followed as practicable as possible. As because this is a selection of the part time Doctor and Compounder, the selection cannot be made in casual manner. It might be hazards for human life. It is to be remembered that the necessity of Homoeopathy Doctors and Compounders at the grassroot level is to meet the requirement in absence of Doctors attached to Allopathy medicine. There are places where hospital facility may not be available. Hence, I have doubt that the strictness of the selection has to be followed. It is to be remembered that the necessity of Homoeopathy Doctors and Compounders at the grassroot level is to meet the requirement in absence of Doctors attached to Allopathy medicine. There are places where hospital facility may not be available. Hence, I have doubt that the strictness of the selection has to be followed. ( 10 ) THEREFOR taking into totality of the matter I am of the view that this application is to be allowed by striking out the selection process with a direction upon the authority that there should be a fresh selection following prescribed norms of selection by a selection committee having at least an expert member of Homoeopathy medicine. Such committee will consider the case not only on the basis of the oral interview but also on the basis of certain other prescribed modes. If such prescribed mode is not available, the mode which according to such expert deemed to be fit and proper will be followed. ( 11 ) THUS, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. ( 12 ) LET an urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the Learned Advocates for the parties within two weeks from the date of putting the requisites. Writ petition allowed.