JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally.f 2. All these writ petitions arise out of the appointment of class IV employees in Godda District. Some of the points being common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 In W.P.(S) No. 5289/2005, the petitioners have challenged the selection process including the filling up of backlog vacancies, whereas in W.P.(S) No. 2769 of 2006 and W.P.(S) No. 3233 of 2007, the petitioners have challenged the filling up of backlog vacancies only. 4. According to the petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 5289 of 2005, the draft panel dated 16.9.2002 was correctly prepared, but the final panel dated 12.8.2005 was prepared fixing wrong (sic) and ignoring the order of this Court and the policy of the Government, under which relaxation of age and weightage for experience was to be given. It was further submitted that on certain complaints, the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka by letter dated 10.9.2005 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to enquire into the matter with regard to selection process. It was further submitted that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 19.4.2006, pointing out certain discrepancies in the in the markings given by the Interview Committees. 5. It was submitted on behalf of all the writ petitioners that the backlog vacancies could not be filled up by the respondents. The letter dated 13.12.2005, issued by the Personal Department, expressing certain doubts regarding filling up of backlog vacancies, was relied. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Modi, appearing for the State, submitted that all the 56 appointees having not been made party, W.P. (S) No. 5289 of 2005 is not maintainable. He further submitted that transparency was maintained and the final panel dated 12.8.2005 was prepared in accordance with law and the petitioners having taken part in the selection process cannot be allowed to challenge the same and the appointments made. 7. The questions, therefore, are (i) whether the selection process was transparent and (ii) whether the backlog vacancies could be filled by the respondents in the said process. 8. The first question first. On 8.2.2002, an advertisement was issued for filling up of class IV vacancies in Godda District. 7. The questions, therefore, are (i) whether the selection process was transparent and (ii) whether the backlog vacancies could be filled by the respondents in the said process. 8. The first question first. On 8.2.2002, an advertisement was issued for filling up of class IV vacancies in Godda District. On 8.4.2002, one writ petition-CWJC No. 9797 of 1998(P) filed by one Rameshwar Rabidas and others for regularization was disposed of directing the respondents to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with law on consideration of the case of petitioners of that case and other eligible candidates. If those petitioners were found overage, age was to be relaxed and the persons working on daily wage were to be given weightage over the outsiders. It may be noted here that the said advertisement dated 8.2.2002 was not brought to the notice of this Court when the said order was passed on 8.4.2002. 9. More than 5000 candidates including the petitioners applied, out of which, 3387 applications were found valid. As the Deputy Commissioner was under the orders of transfer he ordered to place the draft panel dated 16.9.2002 (prepared at the lavel of District Nazarat Deputy Collector) before his successor without approving the same. This panel was rightly not approved by the District Establishment Committee. It appears that wrong criterias were fixed in the draft panel dated 16.9.2002. For example, the candidates were given marks on the basis of old panel of 1998, which was against the said order dated 8.4.2002, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9797 of 1998 (P), in which it was clearly said that the panel of 1998 having become stale, no direction could be given for appointment. Taking into consideration the large number of candidates, the District Establishment Committee decided to conduct interview to select the best candidates. To maintain transparency, six Interview Boards, consisting of three members each were constituted and the candidates were interviewed by one or other Board on the basis of lottery and thereafter a final panel of all the candidates-3387 was prepared on 12.8.2005, and then as per the order of the Commissioner, appointments were made, including the backlog vacancies, as per the roaster. It cannot be said that wrong criterias were fixed while preparing the final panel dated 12.8.2005. It cannot be said that wrong criterias were fixed while preparing the final panel dated 12.8.2005. Besides the minimum educational qualification of the candidates if marks were also given on the basis of their capacity of reading and writing there was nothing wrong in it. Similarly, if the general behaviour, the general knowledge and any special knowledge was also taken into consideration for selecting best candidates, there was nothing working it also. It is clear that the weightage of age and experience and of being held was given. It cannot be said that the selection process was not transparent or it was done against the order of this Court and rules of the Government. Petitioners also faced interview but the candidates who secured more marks were placed above the petitioner. It is settled law that the selecting authorities can adopt the process of elimination if the number of applicants is very high and can fix the criterias for selecting best candidates. It is also equally settled that the candidates who took part in the selection process but could not succeed in getting appointment cannot be allowed to question the selection process. It cannot be accepted that the selection process was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. Para 10 of Madan Lal v. State of J & K reads as follows. 10. 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. 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.... Para 34 of Chandra Prakash Tiwary v. Shakuntala Shukla reads as follows. 34. Para 34 of Chandra Prakash Tiwary v. Shakuntala Shukla reads as follows. 34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process. 10. The selection process was completed on 31.8.2005. Therefore, the said letters dated 10.9.2005, 13.12.2005 and 19.6.2006 are irrelevant, for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. The said letters were only the views of different authorities expressed on the complaints made by the unsuccessful candidates, here and there. 11. The respondents were justified in filing up the backlog vacancies of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (reserved category candidates) in view of Article 16(4B) of the Constitution of India read with Jharkhand Reservation Act, 2001. Moreover, in the said order dated 8.4.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9797 of 1998 (P), this Court directed the respondents to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with law. Further such vacancies were filled as per the order and roster clearance made by the Commissioner. Thus, it appears that the appointment of 11 persons under reserved category from among the backlog was done by the District Level Committee in accordance with law. 12. In view of the said findings, it is not necessary to go into the question whether W.P.(S) No. 5289 of 2005 is incompetent due to non-joinder of all the appointees. 13. In the result, with the findings aforesaid, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, no costs.