Judgment : In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to invite them for Medical test on the basis of State-Wide Mark system maintained for all the candidates, who had undergone the written examination and the interview, in the state of Tamil Nadu and consequently select them to the post of Police Constables Grade II. As there is common cause, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. .2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement, they made applications to the post of Grade II Police Constable. After passing the Written examination conducted by the department, they were called for interview and in the interview, their performance was commendable and therefore, they bona fidely believed that the would be called for the Medical Test. While there was no communication in this regard they approached the office of the respondents and learnt that the selection of the candidates was made on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, district wise. The petitioners appeared for the tests conducted by the Appointment Committee, District Police Office, Salem, Accordingly the petitioners, candidates, who had secured lesser marks in Trichy District would get more chances for appointment in the District, whereas, candidates who had secured more marks than the candidates from Trichy District, are likely to lose their chances of appointment. If state-wide mark system was adopted in the matter of selection, the petitioners would have been called for the Medical Test. It is the further contention of the petitioners that when the written examination was conducted state-wide, there should not be any selection on the basis of district-wide, performance. Adoption of the district-wide mark system, leads to discrimination between the candidates placed under similar circumstances. .3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have contended that knowing fully well that the candidates would be selected only on range basis, the petitioners have undergone the process of selection upto viva-voce test. Therefore, the respondents have submitted that once the petitioners have acquiesced themselves to the selection process, they cannot challenge the same before the Court of law. They have also settled that the petitioners have not secured the cut off marks prescribed for the concerned range, in which, they have applied. .Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. They have also settled that the petitioners have not secured the cut off marks prescribed for the concerned range, in which, they have applied. .Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. The Supreme Court as well as this Court, in catena of decisions have held that once a person has acquiesced himself to the selection process. It is not open to him to challenge the same, after becoming unsuccessful in the selection. It is worthwhile to refer the few judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court in this regard. 5. In I.L. Honnegouda v. State of Karnataka AIR 1978 SC 28 , the Supreme has held that once the appellant acquiesced to the rules by applying for the post of Village Accountant and taking chance of being selected, it is not open to him to question the constitutionality of rules. 6. In Vidhyavathi, P. v. Chairman, T.N. Public Service Commission (1991) 2 MLJ 187 : 1991 Writ.L.R. 389, this Court, at Paragraph 23, held as follows at p. 199 of MLJ. “23. …… Knowing fully well that such was the position with reference to the conduct of the examinations for selection, the non selectees participated in the selection process. After having acquiesced in that position and after having gone through the process of selection, as per the said position, and now not having come out successful, it is not permissible for the non selectees to challenge either the holding of the oral test or the constitution of different Selection Boards.” .7. This Court in R. Karthikeyan v. Teacher’s Recruitment Board (2007) 3 CTC 814 , at Paragraph 21, held as follows: .“21. Even though the petitioner had categorically submitted that the process of selection was arbitrary and violative of the principles enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution of India, he has not sought to challenge the Government Orders and the Rules prescribing such a process of selection. Further, having participated in the process of Selection, it may not be open to the petitioner to challenge the same at this stage.” .8. Further, having participated in the process of Selection, it may not be open to the petitioner to challenge the same at this stage.” .8. In Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 , the Supreme Court at Paragraph 7, held as follows: .“It is not disputed that the respondents-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the rules.” 9. Hence, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.