JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri Ravindra Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Rahul Agarwal for the private respondents No. 4 and 5 and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The brief facts of this case are that in response to an advertisement issued by the Respondent No .3 on 29.8.2007 for filling up 5 posts of Clerks (Group C posts), several persons including the petitioner as well as Respondents No. 4 and 5 had applied. The initial typing test of the candidates was to be held on 15.9.2007. However, the said test was postponed for 4.10.2007. On 4.10.2007 the candidates appeared for the typing test in which only 9 persons qualified, which included the respondents No. 4 and 5. It is contended that the typing test held on 4.10.2007 was cancelled on 8.10.2007 for the reason that requisite number of candidates did not qualify in the said test. Then 18.10.2008 was fixed as the date for another typing test, which was postponed to 29.10.2007 and then again postponed to 6.11.2007. The Selection Committee, consisting of 5 senior district officials as its members, passed an order on 5.11.2007 that the 9 candidates who had passed the typing test held on 4.10.2007 need not be tested again as they had already qualified and the test be held for the remaining candidates. On 6.11.2007, 17 other candidates qualified the typing test. After including the 9 candidates who had qualified in the typing test held on 4.10.2007, the total number of successful candidates became 26. Out of this, 2 candidates of the test held on 4.10.2007 and another 2 candidates of the test held on 6.11.2007 did not have the essential qualifications and thus only 22 candidates were called for interview. 3. It is noteworthy that for filling up the five posts, the minimum number of candidates to be called for interview was 20 (i.e. in the ratio of 1:4). 3. It is noteworthy that for filling up the five posts, the minimum number of candidates to be called for interview was 20 (i.e. in the ratio of 1:4). In such way, since now 22 candidates were found eligible, they were interviewed on 7.11.2007 and the final select list was also declared on the same date, in which the Respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 3 and the Respondent No. 5 at serial No. 4. Three other candidates were also selected, who were from amongst those who had qualified in the typing test held on 6.11.2007. The petitioner, who had qualified on 6.11.2007, was placed in the waiting list. Now by means of this writ petition the petitioner has only challenged the selection of Respondents No. 4 and 5 on the ground that they did not appear in the typing test held on 6.11.2007 and could not have been called for interview on the basis of having qualified in the typing test held on 4.10.2007. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging the entire selection process. He is only challenging the action of the respondents in calling the candidates who qualified the typing test held on 4.10.2007. As has been mentioned above, the ratio in which candidates were to be called for interview was 1 : 4 and accordingly for 5 posts, minimum 20 persons had to be called for interview. If that be so, and the candidates who had qualified in the typing test held on 6.11.2007 alone were to be called for interview, then the process itself would be against the prescribed procedure, as minimum number of 20 candidates would not be there as only 17 persons had qualified in the typing test held on 6.11.2007, out of which two candidates did not possess the minimum qualification. Thus, as per the norms, 15 candidates would not have been the sufficient number to be interviewed for 5 posts. In its wisdom, the Selection Committee had included the 9 candidates who had qualified the typing test held on 4.10.2007 and had passed an order in such terms on 5.11.2007 i.e. prior to the date on which the next test was to be held. In this way the total number of the candidates who had to be interviewed became 22, which fulfils the prescribed ratio of 1 : 4. In this way the total number of the candidates who had to be interviewed became 22, which fulfils the prescribed ratio of 1 : 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any kind of irregularity in the selection/typing test held on 4.10.2007. The further test was required only because the requisite number had not qualified in such test conducted on 4.10.2008. 5. As mentioned earlier, the entire selection process has not been challenged and only the selection of Respondents No. 4 and 5 has been challenged. Such part prayer cannot be granted, specially when in case if the candidates found eligible in the test held on 4.10.2007 are ousted, the entire selection would be set at naught as the minimum number of 20 candidates to be called for interview would not be there, as only 15 were found eligible in the test held on 6.11.2007. Even if it had been prayed for, the entire selection could not be set aside in view of the fact that three other candidates who have been selected and appointed have not been made parties in this writ petition. The petitioner is claiming benefit of his qualifying the typing test held on 6.11.2007 and in case if the candidates of the typing test of 4.10.2007 are excluded, the entire selection would be against the prescribed norms. 6. As has been mentioned above, the petitioner does not say that the test was wrongly held on 4.10.2007 or that the Respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the essential eligibility for being appointed on the post. The cancellation of the test held on 4.10.2007 by order dated 8.10.2007 would be deemed to have been recalled after the passing of the order dated 5.11.2007 by the selection committee consisting of five senior officers of the district administration. In the present case, there is no illegality found to have been committed by the authorities, and even if it is presumed that there was any deviation from the normal procedure, in the facts of the present case, this Court would not be inclined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, there is no illegality found to have been committed by the authorities, and even if it is presumed that there was any deviation from the normal procedure, in the facts of the present case, this Court would not be inclined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my view, unless there is any arbitrariness or discriminatory action found on the part of the authorities in the selection process, which is not so in the present case, the endeavour of the Court should be to save the selection and not nullify it on technical grounds. In my view, the petitioner, who was placed in the waiting list, could have got appointment only if any of the selected candidates had not joined. In the present case, all the selected candidates have joined. The selection had been held as per the prescribed norms, and the petitioner has been unable to point out any infringement of any Rule, norm or procedure. Thus, it cannot be said that the candidates selected in the typing test held on 4.10.2007 should not have been called for interview. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 12.2.2008 stands vacated. 8. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have admittedly been working ever since their selection but are not being paid their salary because of an interim order passed by this Court on 12.2.2008 which was to the effect that though they may work, but the respondents No. 4 and 5 will not be paid salary without leave of the Court. Now since this petition is dismissed, they would be entitled to their salary and other consequential benefits. 9. No order as to cost. ————