Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 3.1.2000 in O.A. No. 960/97 and consequently set aside the selection for the post of Scientist "B" Gr.IV(1), made pursuant to the advertisement in the Hindu dated 14.1.96 and direct the I and II respondents to issue a fresh advertisement for the same and conduct the selection afresh as per the rules.) K. Suguna, J. This writ petition is filed as against the order passed in O.A. No. 960/97 dated 3.1.2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Madras. The O.A. was filed for issue of a direction directing the respondents therein not to make any appointment to the post of Scientist "B" Grade IV (1) pursuant to the interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96 pursuant to the advertisement in the Hindu dated 14.1.1996 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct the selection to the posts of Scientist "B" Group IV(1) afresh in accordance with the rules. The said O.A. was dismissed by order dated 3.1.2000. As against the same, the above writ petition has been filed. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is an association espousing the cause of 6 Technical Officers and one Senior Technical Assistant. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is a member of the first petitioner association and he is a non-selected candidate in the interview conducted. 2. The facts leading to the case are: The second respondent herein, by advertisement in "The Hindu" dated 14.1.96, called for applications for 9 posts of Scientist "B" (Group IV(1)) in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000. As per the said advertisement, out of these 9 posts, two posts were reserved for SC, two for S.T. and two for OBC and the remaining three for others. Basing on the performance in the interview conducted on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96, the selection list was published. Subsequent to this, the petitioners in this writ petition had filed O.A. No. 960/97 with the above said prayer. Basing on the performance in the interview conducted on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96, the selection list was published. Subsequent to this, the petitioners in this writ petition had filed O.A. No. 960/97 with the above said prayer. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the ground of attack by the petitioners is that the entire selection for the post of Scientist "B" (Group (IV(1)) stands vitiated because of the absence of the requisite quorum prescribed under the relevant service rules for recruitment of scientific and technical support staff. Besides, as far as the selection with respect to Electronics and Instrumentation area is concerned, orders have been issued cancelling the same and for re-interview. In spite of this, the second respondent herein has issued the selection list and taken steps to issue appointment orders to the successful candidates. That apart, having issued the cancellation order in respect of Electronic and Instrumentation area, the official respondents cannot make appointments in respect of other specialities because the selection was a single selection process for all specialities. But, all these contentions have been rejected by the Tribunal and the O.A. has been dismissed. 3. In the writ petition, though many grounds have been raised, at the time of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he raised only two contentions namely, (i) in the advertisement dated 4.1.96 by which applications were called for selection and appointment to the post of Scientist "B" (Group(IV)(1)), the roster point for each speciality was not mentioned and (ii) though, as per the said advertisement, applications were called for filling up only 9 posts, basing on the interview conducted on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96, 16 vacancies were filled, which is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has contended that the number of posts reserved out of the posts advertised were specified in the advertisement. The issue of allocation of posts for reserved community was kept open in order to enable the selection of the reserved community candidate in the field whereever they are available. By adopting this method, the interest of the reserved community candidates was fully protected. The issue of allocation of posts for reserved community was kept open in order to enable the selection of the reserved community candidate in the field whereever they are available. By adopting this method, the interest of the reserved community candidates was fully protected. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that even as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court also, in exceptional cases, extra posts can be filled and as far as the respondent department is concerned, though the advertisement was given on 14.1.96 and the selection list was prepared in November, 1996, during the interregnum period, 7 vacancies arose since there was no recruitment in Group IV for the past 6 years. Hence, in addition to the 6 posts mentioned in the advertisement, 7 additional posts were also filled. The Institute was handling projects sponsored by the strategic sectors like Defence, Atomic Energy and Space and also other departments like Railways, Department of Electronics and keeping viable strength of Scientists was an absolute necessity to maintain the tempo of R&D activities and the additional posts sought to be filled were within the revised sanctioned strength of 202 for Group IV. After complying with the formalities, 16 vacancies were filed. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates, as far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, i.e, roster point was not mentioned for each speciality in the advertisement, the procedure of post based roster has been given effect to only from 2.7.97. Apart form this, according to the learned counsel, by following the rules and regulations alone, interview was conducted and selection was made. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same has to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. 7. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, admittedly, in the advertisement called for, the number of posts reserved for the reserved community candidates has been clearly mentioned. As far as non-mentioning of post based roster is concerned, as per the additional counter filed by the Director, post based roster was given effect to only from 2.7.97 whereas the advertisement was given on 14.1.96. As far as non-mentioning of post based roster is concerned, as per the additional counter filed by the Director, post based roster was given effect to only from 2.7.97 whereas the advertisement was given on 14.1.96. That apart, it is the specific case of the official respondents that the issue of allocation of posts for reserved community was kept open in order to enable the selection of reserved community candidates in the field whereever they are available and to see that the reserved vacancies are filled and the interest of the reserved community candidates are fully protected. Besides, after the selection, the rule of reservation, as mentioned in the advertisement, has been fully complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of her contention relied on the Judgment reported in (1990) 4 SCC 55 (SURESH CHANDRA VERMA V. CHANCELLOR) and also 1997 (9) SCC 662 (STATE OF U.P. V. DR. DINANATH SHUKLA). Admittedly, the advertisement was given on 14.1.1996. In pursuance of the advertisement, interview was conducted on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96. If, actually, the petitioners herein were aggrieved by the non-mentioning of the post based roster in the advertisement, certainly, they would have challenged the advertisement itself. On the other hand, the members of the first petitioner as well as the second petitioner had participated in the interview and only on their non-selection, the O.A. has been filed. As such, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not maintainable on the date on which the original application was filed. That part, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the selected candidates, as per the official memorandum, post based roster has been given effect to only from 2.7.97, whereas the advertisement was given as early as 1996. Hence, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners will not stand. 8. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though advertisement was given only for 9 vacancies, 16 vacancies were filled, which according to the learned counsel is contrary to the settled principle and in support of which, she has relied on the judgments reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377 (HOSHIAR SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA) and (1997) 8 SCC 488 (SURINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB) also cannot be accepted. As far as the judgment reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377 is concerned, the issue involved is whether the appointment on the additional posts on the basis of selection and recommendation would deprive candidates, who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts, if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently. As far as the judgment reported in (1997) 8 SCC 488 is concerned, in view of the special circumstances of that case, the Honourable Supreme Court did not invalidate the appointment made for the additional posts. Besides, as per the above said judgment, the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments to posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances and in an emergent situation. As far as the respondent department is concerned, a specific averment has been made that between the date of advertisement and selection, 7 more vacancies arose. That apart, the reason basing on which additional posts were filled were also given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent department as detailed below: "It is submitted that although nine posts of Scientist-B were advertised initially in January, 1996, sixteen posts were vacant at the time of interview in November, 1996. The Director felt the need to fill the remaining seven vacancies on the ground that- (i) There was no recruitment in Gr.IV for the past six years; (ii) The Institute was handling projects sponsored by strategic sectors like Defence, Atomic Energy and Space, apart from important departments like Railways, Department of Electronics, etc. and keeping viable strength of Scientists was an absolute necessity to maintain the tempo of R&D activities; (iii) The additional posts sought to be filled were within the revised sanctioned strength of 202 for Gr.IV." But this reasoning of the official respondents is not even denied by the counsel for the petitioners. As such, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners also will not stand. 9. Even as per the averment of the petitioners in the original application as well as the writ petition, the first petitioner has filed the original application as well as the writ petition espousing the cause of 6 Technical Officers and one Senior Technical Assistant. 9. Even as per the averment of the petitioners in the original application as well as the writ petition, the first petitioner has filed the original application as well as the writ petition espousing the cause of 6 Technical Officers and one Senior Technical Assistant. Out of the selected candidates, six were departmental hands. That apart, these six candidates are members of the first petitioner association. Having made an averment that O.A. has been filed espousing the cause of 6 Technical Officers and even after their selection, challenging the same, in our opinion, is against the interest of the members of the association. 10. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, he was not selected in the interview conducted in the year 1996. Even in the subsequent interview also, he was not selected. As such, the second petitioner, having failed to get selected even in the second selection and the first petitioner association, six members of whom have been selected, cannot challenge the process of selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 (MADAN LAL V. STATE OF J&K) has also held on the above lines: "9. Therefore, the result of the interview test 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......" The above decision has been followed in a later Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 2322 (CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI V. SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA) as well. 11. Besides, the O.A. and the writ petition have been filed for the following prayer: "Prayer in O.A.: To direct the respondents not to make any appointment to the post of Scientist "B" Grade IV (1) pursuant to the interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 3.11.96 and 4.11.96 pursuant to the advertisement in the Hindu dated 14.1.1996 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct the selection to the posts of Scientist "B" Group IV(1) afresh in accordance with the rules. Prayer in W.P.: To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records, set aside the selection for the post of Scientist "B" Gr.IV(1), made pursuant to the advertisement in the Hindu dated 14.1.96 and direct the I and II respondents to issue a fresh advertisement for the same and conduct the selection afresh as per the rules. Prayer in W.P.: To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records, set aside the selection for the post of Scientist "B" Gr.IV(1), made pursuant to the advertisement in the Hindu dated 14.1.96 and direct the I and II respondents to issue a fresh advertisement for the same and conduct the selection afresh as per the rules. Initially, when the original application was filed, none of the selected candidates were impleaded as respondents. Some of the selected candidates impleaded themselves as respondents. That apart, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 1176 (BUDDI NATH CHAUDHARY V. ABAHI KUMAR), "appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed." Altogether, by the said process of selection, 19 candidates were selected. Now, if the prayer in the writ petition is granted, 19 candidates will get affected. But, without even impleading them as parties, the writ petition is not maintainable. For these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.