Arun Kumar Mitra ( 1 ) SIX petitioners working as Upper Division Assistants at different departments/sections in the Appellate Side of this High Court moved the instant writ petition with the following prayers :-a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities. i) to act in accordance with law ; ii) to forthwith revoke, rescind, cancel and/or withdraw the impugned panel purportedly prepared from amongst the Upper Division assistants having LL. B Degree for selection for promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter and to follow the relevant service rules governing the matter of promotion to the said posts of stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter from amongst the Upper division Assistants having LL. B. Degree and service seniority in case no candidate from the feeder posts is available. b) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondent-authorities to certify and produce or cause to be produced all the relevant records of the case before this Hon'ble Court so that on perusing the same conscionable justice may be done by quashing and cancelling the impugned panel. c) A writ of or in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from giving effect to the impugned panel insofar as selection for promotion from amongst the empanelled candidates, barring only the Respondent No. 5 is concerned. ( 2 ) BY a notice dated 8th July, 2002 issued by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Appellate Side, applications were invited from the employees having LL. B. Degree and working as the Upper Division Assistants and above to appear at an oral test for preparation of a panel for filling up the existing as well as future vacancies in the post of Stamp Reporters, Additional Stamp reporters in the Appellate Side. High Court, Calcutta. A xerox copy of the said notice has been made Annexure-'p-1' to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE six petitioners were posted as Upper Division Assistants and they had L. L. B. Degrees at that material point of time when notice was issued and accordingly all of them were applicants. High Court, Calcutta. A xerox copy of the said notice has been made Annexure-'p-1' to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE six petitioners were posted as Upper Division Assistants and they had L. L. B. Degrees at that material point of time when notice was issued and accordingly all of them were applicants. ( 4 ) IT is the further case of the petitioners that 13 candidates and not 12 candidates, as alleged were called for the test and in fact though it was publicized that 12 candidates were there, actually one Sri Pushpendu Chanda was included for mala fide purpose along with these 12 candidates Sri Chanda was the junior most in service. The petitioners have made an annexure being annexure 'p-2' believing it to be the list prepared. Annexure-'p-2' to the writ petition has been made by the petitioners claiming it to be the list of 13 candidates. ( 5 ) THE petitioners annexed a notification being No. 9358 (1)-G dated 28. 08. 1986 containing 1986 Rules as Annexure-P-3. According to the petitioners clause 9 of these rules which is named as Calcutta High Court Service (Appellate side) Categorisation of Posts, Channels of Promotion and Principles of Seniority rules, 1986 (hereinafter termed as said promotion and seniority rules) has been violated in the matter of preparation of the panel. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners Sri Dilip Kr. Banerjee (being respondent no. 5), the senior most Upper Division Assistant was rightly selected for promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter and his inclusion was in conformity with the rules of 1986. ( 7 ) THE petitioners further alleged that the rest three incumbents, i. e. , respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9 were promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/ additional Stamp Reporter illegally ignoring the 1986 rules and in super session of the other eligible senior candidates. ( 8 ) THE petitioners also alleged that preparation of the panel-41. . . . . . . . . . provision of the rules to the effect that in case no candidate is available from the feeder posts, the senior most Upper Division Assistant having LL. B. degree may be promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp reporter. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners in view of the above provision of law, the impugned panel should be revoked or cancelled. B. degree may be promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp reporter. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners in view of the above provision of law, the impugned panel should be revoked or cancelled. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER the petitioners sought to clarify Rule 9 of the 1986 rules. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on plain reading of Clause 9 of 1986 Rules it appears that the post of Stamp Reporter is to be filled by an incumbent of the feeder post having LL. B. degree. Only when such an eligible candidate from the feeder post is not available, the senior most person in Upper Division category having LL. B. degree may be considered for appointment of the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp reporter. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily in taking a decision for preparing a panel for promotion in the post of Stamp Reporter/additional stamp Reporter from amongst the Upper Division Assistants having LL. B. degrees. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel also submitted that the learned Deputy registrar (Administration) by a notice dated 22. 07. 2002 requested as many as 12 incumbents including the petitioners to appear at the said oral test and the said notice contains the name of total 12 candidates as shown to have been called forthe test. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel the name of 13th candidate, pushpendu Chanda, respondent No. 9 herein did not figure in the said notice but he was invited in the test upon subsequent inclusion illegally. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel forthe petitioners submitted that the petitioners made representation but that was not also considered. ( 16 ) MR. Ghosh, appearing forthe High Court authorities submitted that in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioners themselves have admitted that total 13 candidates were called for. ( 17 ) MR. Ghosh relied on the notice, which is Annexure-'p'1' to the writ petition itself and submitted that the notice is very clear and it is a selection post. ( 18 ) MR. Ghosh submitted that the post of Stamp Reporter/additional stamp Reporter belonged to selection grade category according to Schedule-'a', SI. Nos. 18 and 19 of the Calcutta High Court Service (Appellate Side)Categorisation of Posts, Channels of Promotion and Principles of Seniority rules, 1986. ( 18 ) MR. Ghosh submitted that the post of Stamp Reporter/additional stamp Reporter belonged to selection grade category according to Schedule-'a', SI. Nos. 18 and 19 of the Calcutta High Court Service (Appellate Side)Categorisation of Posts, Channels of Promotion and Principles of Seniority rules, 1986. ( 19 ) MR. Ghosh further submitted that a panel containing the name of five candidates was formed under the order of the learned Registrar General. ( 20 ) MR. Ghosh also submitted that empanelled candidates under SI. Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed to officiate in the vacancies of the Stamp Reporter/ additional Stamp Reporter occurred from time to time due to retirement. ( 21 ) MR. Ghosh submitted that in view of the said position, a fresh panel comprising all six candidates was prepared under the order of Registrar general and the Officers who were empanelled were directed to perform the duties of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter every day for an hour in addition to their own duties to get themselves acquainted with practical work of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter before they got actual appointment to the said posts. ( 22 ) MR. Ghosh relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and submitted that the empanelled candidates under SI. No. 4 has been appointed to the post of special Assistant (Legal ). Subsequently, the empanelled candidates under si. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 expressed their unwillingness to get promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter and in the above background the existing panel was treated to have exhausted. ( 23 ) MR. Ghosh submitted that accordingly the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Appellate Side issued a notice dated 8th July, 2002 inviting applications from the employees having LL. B. degrees and working in the post of Upper Division Assistant for preparation of a panel in the post of stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter. In response to the said notice 12 applications had been received and Mr. Ghosh submitted that one candidate, Sri Pushpendu Chanda made a prayer in writing dated 24th July, 2002 for acceptance of his candidature for the said post after condoning the delay in submitting the application. Sri Chanda was eligible to be considered for the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter as per notice dated 8th July, 2002. Ghosh submitted that one candidate, Sri Pushpendu Chanda made a prayer in writing dated 24th July, 2002 for acceptance of his candidature for the said post after condoning the delay in submitting the application. Sri Chanda was eligible to be considered for the post of Stamp Reporter/additional Stamp Reporter as per notice dated 8th July, 2002. Such prayer of Sri Pushpendu Chanda for condonation of delay was duly considered and accepted. Accordingly, 13 candidates were called at the oral test for selection to the said post. ( 24 ) MR. Ghosh mainly submitted on three counts, first of all the mode of selection or the procedure of selection for a particular post which is laid down by the employer is purely a policy decision which cannot be challenged in this ordinary course ; secondly, in the instant case neither there is violation of Rule 9 of 1986 Rules nor it is a promotional post and thirdly, a candidate, who takes chance to appear in a selection test fully knowing about the procedures cannot turn around and challenge the selection procedure after being unsuccessful. In fact Mr. Ghosh submitted that there is no violation of any rule and the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 25 ) MR. Ghosh further submitted that the petitioners have not taken into consideration the factum of the possession of power by the Hon'ble chief Justice in this regard as provided under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ghosh in support of his contentions relied on several decisions. ( 26 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION has also been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and submitted that it is peculiar that when the respondent No. 5 was selected in the same method the petitioners supported his cause and didn't challenge it and on the contrary on oath the petitioners stated that the appointment of Respondent No. 5 is valid but when the other respondents are brought into the panel the petitioners challenged it. ( 27 ) IN reply, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sardar Amjad AN submitted that there is violation of Rule 9 and the panel prepared forthe purpose should be quashed/set aside immediately. ( 27 ) IN reply, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sardar Amjad AN submitted that there is violation of Rule 9 and the panel prepared forthe purpose should be quashed/set aside immediately. ( 28 ) LET me see or quote Rule 9 which is as follows :- (Rule 9 referred to hereinabove)"the requisite qualification for the post of Stamp Reporter shall be: LL. B. Degree. Provided that when no qualified person is available in the feeder posts, the senior most person in U. D. Assistants Category having a ll. B. Degree may be considered for appointment to the post of Stamp reporter. " ( 29 ) FOR the sake of convenience let me now quote the power of the hon'ble Chief Justice as provided under Article 229 (2 ). " (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of Officers and service of a High court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief justice of the Court or by some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorized by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose :-Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions required the approval of the Governor of the State. "now, let me have a look into the citations in this regard. The decisions reported in AIR 1986 SC. page 1043 (Om Prakash shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.) in its Paragraph 23 speaks in the manner as follows :-"23. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination. The high Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible forthe conduct of the examination. " ( 30 ) IN this case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a competitive examination when a person has appeared without protest, he cannot subsequently challenge the procedure of the said examination. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible forthe conduct of the examination. " ( 30 ) IN this case the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a competitive examination when a person has appeared without protest, he cannot subsequently challenge the procedure of the said examination. ( 31 ) IN the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC, p. 795 (Union of India and anr. v. N. Chandrasekharan and Ors. ). In Paragraphs 13 and 14 which are quoted hereinbelow, the same view was adopted :-"13. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the facts presented before us. It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report. Even on merits, we agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that due regard must be had to the posts to which the candidates are to be promoted as well as to the nature of duties they have to discharge/perform and so viewing the marks given to the interview cannot be considered as disproportionately high or the spread of marks was done arbitrarily. The Departmentalpromotion Committee consisted of the following personalities". "14. A look at the above composition will place beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no scope for arbitrary exercise of selection of favouritism. It is also relevant to point out that though in the pleadings vaguely mala fides was raised, nothing was established nor the tribunal discussed about it. In the absence of any mala fides pleaded and established and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the importance given to the interview cannot by any means by termed as arbitrary or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. DESIGNATION LOCATION 1 Jt . Secretary to GOI Chairman DOS Bangalore 2. Scientific Secretary ISRO Alt. Chairman/member ISRO, HQ. Bangalore 3 Head, Programme Planning & Evaluation Division Member ISAC, Bangalore 4. Addl. DESIGNATION LOCATION 1 Jt . Secretary to GOI Chairman DOS Bangalore 2. Scientific Secretary ISRO Alt. Chairman/member ISRO, HQ. Bangalore 3 Head, Programme Planning & Evaluation Division Member ISAC, Bangalore 4. Addl. Chief Engineer Member CFD, Bangalore 5. Head, Purchase & Stores Member VSSC, Trivandrum 6. Head, Purchase & Stores Member SHAR, Sriharikota 7. Head, Purchase & Stores Member ISAC, Bangalore 8. Head, Purchase & Stores Member SAC, Ahmedabad ". ( 32 ) IN the decision reported in 1995 Vol. (3) SCC page 486 (Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J. and K. and Ors.) the Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear on the point. In Paragraphs 9 and 10 which are quoted hereinbelow the Hon'ble Apex court made out the position ample clear, which in my view, is exactly the point-in-issue in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lai's case relied on Omprakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla's case (supra) and observed that when a person has appeared at the examination knowing fully the procedure and takes a calculated chance and thereafter being unsuccessful can't turn around and challenge the said procedure. In the instant case also when the notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar there was no challenge, when interview was called for there was no challenge and ultimately when the petitioners failed or became unsuccessful they challenged the selection procedure and this is not permissible as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection Committee was not properly constituted in the case of Om prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. ""10. Therefore, the result of the interview last on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting high Court Judge to Judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. " ( 33 ) THAT apart I don't find any ground also on which the panel is challenged or so to say on which the panel should be set aside or quashed rule 9 as quoted above, has not been violated, Article 229 (2) gives the Hon'ble chief Justice the additional power of relaxation and Pushpendu Chanda's application was accepted by/or under the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. ( 34 ) NEITHERTHERE is any violation of rule nor the petitioners challenged at the outset, the notice or the procedure for interview and ultimately when the petitioners found them out of the track, they challenged the selection procedure and submitted that the formation of panel is illegal. ( 35 ) I don't find any merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners having due regard or respect to the same and I also don't find any merit in the writ petition itself. ( 36 ) IN view of the discussions made above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.