ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent, by a Notification dated 5. 5. 2002, invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Typists and also other posts. The petitioner is concerned with the post of a Typist. According to the notification, six posts of typists were advertised for selection and appointment. The classification of these six posts, was as under: 1) General Merit - 2 posts 2) Scheduled Castes - 1 post 3) Scheduled Tribes- 1 post Other Backward classes 4) Group IIA - 1 post 5) Group IIB - 1 post the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of a typist was a pass in S. S. L. C. or equivalent examination and a pass in Senior grade English and Kannada Typewriting examinations, preference being given to those who have knowledge of shorthand. The petitioner was a Scheduled Caste candidate. He had passed the requisite examinations namely, S. S. L. C. , kannada Typewriting Senior Grade and English Typewriting Senior Grade and also Kannada senior Grade Shorthand examination and he possessed necessary documents in this regard and he also claimed selection against posts reserved for rural candidates. The petitioner offered himself to one of the posts of typists which was advertised in the above notification. The petitioner, accordingly, was called for taking the typewriting examination on 16. 9. 2001 in terms of Annexure "e" dated 4. 9. 2001. The petitioner had thereafter attended the said examination. It is his case that inspite of the same, the petitioner is not made aware of the fate of his application or the reason why he has not been selected, while respondents 3 to 20 have been accommodated as typists. It is in this background the present petition is filed. ( 2 ) THE counsel for the petitioner would argue that though only six posts of typists were advertised, there was selection of 19 candidates and only one of whom is a Scheduled Caste, candidate which is inexplicable. The said 19 candidates have been appointed by separate orders. The counsel would submit that Government order providing for reservation in direct recruitment are applicable to the selection of candidates for appointment in the Karnataka Legislative assembly Secretariat and he would submit that in terms of the Government order dated 20. 6. The said 19 candidates have been appointed by separate orders. The counsel would submit that Government order providing for reservation in direct recruitment are applicable to the selection of candidates for appointment in the Karnataka Legislative assembly Secretariat and he would submit that in terms of the Government order dated 20. 6. 1995, out of 19 selected candidates, a minimum of three candidates belonging to the scheduled Castes should have been selected and the present selection of 19 candidates, of whom only one is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste, is directly contrary to the provisions of the Government order and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. He would submit that it was mandatory on the part of the first respondent to have followed the Government Order and has committed a breach of the same, which invites penalty in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ). He would also point out that the advertisement clearly indicates that preference should be given to persons with the knowledge of shorthand. This was a qualification which merited consideration insofar as the petitioner is concerned. ( 3 ) PER contra, Shr. Ravi Varma Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shr. K. H. Somashekar, for respondents Nos. 3 to 20, would first point out that in so far as the prayers in the writ petition are concerned, there is no prayer affecting the appointment orders of the respondents Nos. 3 to 20 and hence they are unnecessary parties to the writ petition, in so far as there is no challenge to their appointment. In any event, by way of abundant caution, the counsel for the said respondents would canvass the following contentions: primarily, the very notification indicates that the number of posts is subject to variation and this being indicated in the notification, selection of 19 candidates to 19 posts cannot be a means of grievance for the petitioner. In so far as reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is concerned, even according to the petitioner, one candidate belonging to Scheduled caste has been appointed and though the petitioner has not stated it, one Scheduled Tribe has also been accommodated. In so far as reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is concerned, even according to the petitioner, one candidate belonging to Scheduled caste has been appointed and though the petitioner has not stated it, one Scheduled Tribe has also been accommodated. He would primarily point out that the petitioner having chosen to participate by filing his application and attending the written examination, the present petition being filed one year after the process, to point out the infirmities in so far as the prescription of written test or the variation in the number of posts, and seeking to have the selection and appointment quashed, is not tenable, as held by the Supreme Court on principle. ( 4 ) IN this regard, he would rely upon the following judgments: Suneetha Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR2000 SC 1058 , [2000 (84 )FLR898 ], JT2000 (2 )SC 168 , 2000 (1 )SCALE566 , (2000 )2 SCC615 , [2000 ]1 scr783 , 2000 (3 )SLJ30 (SC ), 2000 (1 )UJ405 (SC ), (2000 )1 UPLBEC806 : Where the appellant had applied for a post and she and another person were interviewed and her name was approved and placed at serial No. 2 whereas, another person was placed at serial No. 1. However, the Selection Committee having recommended the name of the appellant for the said post, it was not approved by the Vice Chancellor, who directed the post to be re-advertised. Accordingly the post was again re-advertised and in response thereto, the appellant again applied for being considered. She appeared before the Selection Committee without any kind of protest and simultaneously filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Vice Chancellor, whereby the Vice Chancellor had disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and directed for a fresh advertisement. On the writ petition of the appellant, an interim order was passed to the effect that the selection process may go on, but the result of the same to be not declared. This had not been brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor, without such knowledge, had approved the name of the other candidate whose name was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. Consequent upon the said approval, the said person joined the said post. This had not been brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor, without such knowledge, had approved the name of the other candidate whose name was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. Consequent upon the said approval, the said person joined the said post. Subsequently, the interim order being brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor, he withdrew the approval of the said person, who had joined the post, who in turn, filed a separate writ petition. The writ petition of the appellant and the writ petition of the other person were heard together and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and she was before the Supreme Court in this background. The Supreme Court held that not only the appellant applied for the post, but also appeared before the Selection Committee constituted consequent upon re-advertisement of the post and that too without any kind of protest, and on the same day, she filed a writ petition against the order of the Vice Chancellor declining to accord his approval, and obtained an interim order. In the writ petition also she did not disclose that she had applied for the post consequent upon second advertisement. The Supreme Court held that me appellant having appeared before the Selection Committee without any protest and having taken a chance, she would be estopped by her conduct, from challenging the earlier order of the Vice chancellor and the High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in her favour. He would also place reliance on the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. 1986 SCC (L and S) 644: Wherein the Supreme Court has held that the respondent candidate, who appeared for the examination without protest, had filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself had observed that the setting aside of the result of examinations held in 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 in question also since they were not responsible for the conduct of the examination. ( 5 ) BY the same token of reasoning, the Senior Advocate would submit that when the present respondents, namely respondents Nos. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district in question also since they were not responsible for the conduct of the examination. ( 5 ) BY the same token of reasoning, the Senior Advocate would submit that when the present respondents, namely respondents Nos. 3 to 20 could not be held responsible for the conduct of the examination, the petitioner is aggrieved by the change in the scenario in that, there were more number of candidates selected in the examination held contrary to the notification dated 5. 5. 2001. The petitioner ought to have challenged the same in the first instance and ought not to have taken a chance by taking the written test. The petition therefore lacks bona fides and ought to be rejected, notwithstanding that the petitioner has not sought to challenge the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 20. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the respondent No. 2 would reiterate the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 to 20 and he would submit that there is no reason forthcoming as to why the selection of second respondent should be quashed, whereas the complaint of the petitioner is to the effect that there has been infirmity in the entire selection process. ( 7 ) IN so far as the first respondent is concerned, the Government Advocate would contend, that on facts, the petitioner, who had been called for the typewriting test prescribed, was not qualified in the typing test and as such he is not eligible for further consideration. In so far as the contention that there is a variation in the number of posts advertised and the number of posts actually filled up, he would submit that the number of vacancies vary on account of consequential vacancies and some newly created posts and these were filled up after following the roster and other procedures. Two candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and one candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe have been given appointments. This is permissible since the very notification dated 5. 5. 2001 had categorically spelt out that the notification is subject to variations in the number of vacancies indicated. He would further argue that some of the vacancies existed due to backlog and these were up-dated vide notification dated 30. 10. 2002, while there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 5. 2001 had categorically spelt out that the notification is subject to variations in the number of vacancies indicated. He would further argue that some of the vacancies existed due to backlog and these were up-dated vide notification dated 30. 10. 2002, while there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. And, this is in accordance with the note appended to the notification dated 5. 5. 2001 itself. ( 8 ) BY way of reply, the counsel for the petitioner, would seek to place reliance on several judgments and would distinguish the judgments cited by the learned Senior Advocate Shr. Ravi varma Kumar in pointing out that in so far as judgments cited by respondents Nos. 3 to 20 are concerned, the decision in those cases turn on the facts of the case and he would point out that the very rules involved therein provided for a procedure and when there was violation of the procedure, the candidates knowingly having participated after such violation, could not on principle, challenge the same, whereas, in the present case, the notification being silent as to the written test and the petitioner having been taken by surprise as to the written test, did not have a choice but to chose to participate in the written test and it is only subsequently that he could raise a complaint in respect of such procedure. ( 9 ) IN this regard, he would rely upon the following judgments: Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1995 (5) SLR 337 : In support of his contention that the Selection Board would not have the jurisdiction to lay down rules and procedure for selection of candidates. It would be outside the jurisdiction of the Selection committee. He would rely on Para Nos. 31, 32 and 33 of the said judgment in this regard. He would also rely upon a judgment in the case of B. R. Ramabhadraiah v. Secretary, Food and agriculture Department, Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1981) 3 SCC 538 -in support of his contention that it is open to the court to mould the relief and this ought to be the endeavour of the court to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice, rather than denying the relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds. (1981) 3 SCC 538 -in support of his contention that it is open to the court to mould the relief and this ought to be the endeavour of the court to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice, rather than denying the relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds. He also places reliance on the case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. etc. 1996 IV AD (SC )593 , JT1996 (5 )SC 219 , (1996 )II llj786 SC , 1996 (4 ) SCALE354 , (1996 )4 SCC319 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR401 , 1996 (2 )UJ239 (SC ), (1996 )3 UPLBEC2188 : to contend that excess number of candidates beyond the number posts selected and appointed, is invalid. It is held therein, that the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision thereof. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged, the court may not, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of persons seeking public appointment, and what relief should be granted in such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this regard, the counsel would submit that the State Government is not categorical in its statement that the variation of the vacancies was warranted because of any emergent situation or that there was a change in policy and it is only vaguely contended that the notification dated 5. 5. 2001 itself provided for any such variation and that a need arose when appointment of 20 candidates was made, though the notification pertain to six vacancies, Hence, in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court, appropriate relief ought to be granted to the petitioner as the appointments are clearly in violation of the stated number of vacancies. 5. 2001 itself provided for any such variation and that a need arose when appointment of 20 candidates was made, though the notification pertain to six vacancies, Hence, in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court, appropriate relief ought to be granted to the petitioner as the appointments are clearly in violation of the stated number of vacancies. And, would further submit, that the State Government by way of statement of objections have contended that the petitioner has failed in the written examination is urged for the first time and there is no indication at all in the notification and the State government further seeking to place reliance on Sub-rule 7 of Rule 5 of the Karnataka legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity) and the further admission by the State government that Sub-rule 7 of Rule 5 of the Rules provides that in case of direct recruitment to any category of posts, the Secretary, with the approval of the Speaker, shall invite applications from candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and select the candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and most suitable for appointment after examination in writing or viva-voce or both, as the Speaker may deem fit, is an after-thought and the notification being silent as to the written examination being prescribed or the minimum required marks being spelt out, it could not be held that the petitioner had failed in the written examination and would not merit any consideration. ( 10 ) ON these rival contentions, on principle, the petitioner ought to have questioned the infirmities which are stated in the petition, at the earliest. In this regard, there is no explanation forthcoming as to the delay of over one year in seeking to challenge the infirmities and irregularities which are sought to be urged as being material in the present petition in having the order at Annexure "g-17" quashed, and seeking further directions in so far as considering the application of the petitioner for selection is concerned. The petitioner having been called upon to take the written examination being urged as an infirmity, which was not indicated in the first instance in the notification dated 5. 5. 2001, is also not a material consideration which would prejudice the petitioner. The petitioner having been called upon to take the written examination being urged as an infirmity, which was not indicated in the first instance in the notification dated 5. 5. 2001, is also not a material consideration which would prejudice the petitioner. In terms of Sub-rule 7 of Rule 5 of the Rules it was permissible for such a procedure being adopted and it is not a material deviation as would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Selection Board as held in the judgments which were cited in support of the petitioner's case. It is only where the rules are violated or deviated and which would materially affect the petitioner's right to participate in the selection process, that it could be set at naught. It is clear from the very judgments which have been relied on by the petitioner, that the decision of the selection Committee can be interfered with on the limited ground that there is illegality or material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee, or in its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection. This is made clear by the Supreme Court in para 26 of the judgment in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu's case supra. The present infirmities, cannot therefore be held to be deviations adopted by the Selection Committee, which could be termed as being illegal or a material irregularity vitiating the selection. In so far as the variation in the number of posts is concerned, again, in the very judgment relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that the court is not in a position to interfere with such a situation and at best, the relief could be moulded in favour of the litigant and variation in the posts ought not be set at naught in the given case. On principle, the petitioner not having chosen to question the validity of the process of selection, but having participated in the written test and thereafter having questioned the same by way of this writ petition, is also to be held against the petitioner, especially when the same is done after a delay of over a year and accordingly, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions taken by the petitioner. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY the petition stands dismissed.