JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, also heard Mr. S.T. Kom, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. Mohendro Singh, learned Counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No. 3. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are stated as hereunder: 2.1. Regional Institute of Medical Science ('RIMS'), which is arrayed as respondent No. l in the writ petition, is a Society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, and this institute provides health care services to the general people apart from catering medical education up to P.G. Course. The Institute has recently been taken over by the Government of India and it is now placed under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India. 2.2. The staffing pattern of nurses and the different category of nurses available in RIMS, are as follows: 1. Nursing Supdt. - Grade ‘A’ 2. Dy. Nursing Supdt. - Grade ‘B’ 3. Asst. Nursing Supdt. - Graded ‘B’ 4. Staff Nurse (Regular) - Grade ‘C’ 5. Staff Nurse (Contract) · · · Category Nos. 1 to 3 above are promotional posts and category 4 is the only direct recruitment post. Of course, Category 5 is for Contract appointment, not a permanent feature of staffing pattern of nurses in RIMS. 2.3. That, recruitment/appointment to different grade of Nurses, as mentioned above, are governed and regulated by separate recruitment rules, framed by the authorities of RIMS. The appointment to the post of Staff Nurse, which is a grade 'C' post is governed by the recruitment rules framed and published on 4.12.1999, and according to this recruitment rules, the post of Staff Nurse is a selection post and the nature of DPC is Class-III (Non-Ministerial). Essential qualifications prescribed in Column-11 are as follows : (1) PUC/HSSLC or its equivalent qualification of a recognized University/Board; (2) Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or equivalent from a recognized Nursing School/Institute; and (3) Registered as Nurse with any State Nursing Council. 2.4. Essential qualifications prescribed in Column-11 are as follows : (1) PUC/HSSLC or its equivalent qualification of a recognized University/Board; (2) Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or equivalent from a recognized Nursing School/Institute; and (3) Registered as Nurse with any State Nursing Council. 2.4. The Director of RIMS issued a requisition dated 24.12.2007 for recruitment of 45 number of Staff Nurse on regular basis, fixing 24.1.2008 as the last date for receipt of names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, and it was clearly stipulated in para-4 of the notification that the date, time and place of interview would be notified later on by the Office of the Directory RIMS. The break up of the aforesaid 45 posts, on the basis of community reservation, is as follows: Scheduled Tribe - 11; Scheduled Cast - 01; O.B.C. - 10; Non-reserved - 23 45 2.5. However, submission of applications by the Staff Nurses, working in the RIMS Hospital on contract basis, whose names were not sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges, was extended up to 5.2.2008 by a notification dated 31.1.2008. Thereafter, by a notice dated 27.2.2008, dates for interview were notified as 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th of March, 2008. The notification also informed the candidates, sponsored by the Employment Exchanges as well as the applicants of the contract employees of RIMS, to be present in the interview along with their original certificates/testimonials, etc. List of candidates was also published in the Notice Board of RIMS, Imphal. By another notice dated 1.3.2008 issued by the Deputy Director (Admn), RIMS, the calendar of the interview dates along with the number of candidates to be interviewed on the dates specified therein, was issued and that was widely published in six local newspapers, All India Radio, DDK, Imphal and IS TV, Imphal. The calendar, issued on 1.3.2008. is reproduced herein below: REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, IMPHAL -795004 (An autonomous Institute under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India) NOTICE Imphal, the 1st March, 2008 No: 62/A/73-MC(V) : The interview for appointment of Staff Nurses (Regular), R.I.M.S., Imphal will be held as per programme given below: Date Candidate Sl. No. Time Place 8.3.2008 (2nd Saturday) 1-400 10.00AM Jubilee Hall 9.3.2008 (Sunday) 401-800 -do- -do- 10.3.2008 (Monday) 801-1200 -do- -do- 11.3.2008 (Tuesday) 1201-1600 -do- -do- 12.3.2008 (Wednesday) 1601-up to the last Sl. No. -do- -do- Sd/-1/3/08 (Th. No. Time Place 8.3.2008 (2nd Saturday) 1-400 10.00AM Jubilee Hall 9.3.2008 (Sunday) 401-800 -do- -do- 10.3.2008 (Monday) 801-1200 -do- -do- 11.3.2008 (Tuesday) 1201-1600 -do- -do- 12.3.2008 (Wednesday) 1601-up to the last Sl. No. -do- -do- Sd/-1/3/08 (Th. Chandrabir Singh) Regional Institute of Medical Imphal Sciences Copy to: 1. The P.S. to Director, RIMS, Imphal - for kind Information of Director. 2. The Medical Superintendent, RIMS Hospital, Imphal. 3. The Director, DDK, Imphal. 4. The Director, All India Radio, Imphal. 5. The News Editor, ISTV, Imphal. 6. The CAO/FA, RIMS, Imphal. 7. The Editor: (1) The Sangai Express They are requested to publish the above notice in their dailies for 1 (one) and submit the bill in in duplicate (a) Govt. approved rate for payment. (2) Huiyel Lanpao (3) Naharol Thoudang (4) Poknapham day (5) Manipur Express (6) Honaswnna Thar CASE OF THE PETITIONERS 3. The petitioners, three in number, claim that they are the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they, further, claim that their interview Sl. Nos. are 573, 578 and 1134 respectively. It is, further, stated by the petitioners that the first two writ petitioners, though scheduled to appear on the second day of the interview of the DPC, i.e., 9.3.2008, they did not appear in the said DPC and petitioner No. 3 appeared on the 4th day of the interview, i.e., on 11.3.2008. The reason underlying for abstention from the interview by the first two writ petitioners is that the interview, on the first day, started at about 11.30 AM in stead of 10.00 AM and it continued only up to 5.00 PM and on the next day, i.e., 9.3.2008, interview started at 10.00 AM and concluded at 5.00 PM and as such there was hardly one minute for assessing the suitability of a candidate in the interview. The aforesaid calculation was made on the basis that the time from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM in a day, is only 7 hours, which is equal to 420 minutes and dividing this 420 minutes amongst 400 candidates to be interviewed in a day, there would hardly be one minute available for each candidate and as such the DPC was unfair and unreasonable and for the reasons discussed above, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear in the interview. 4. 1 and 2 did not appear in the interview. 4. It is also contended by the petitioners that allotment of 85 marks for interview and 15 marks for educational qualification, and oral interview of 400 to 600 candidates in a single day, was found arbitrary and illegal by the Apex Court and relying on that judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the DPC proceedings held pursuant to the notification dated 27.2.2008 and the subsequent calendar dated 1.3.2008 with a prayer to hold fresh selection process by holding written test examination as well as viva-voce test. 5. Though an attempt was made in the writ petition by the petitioners that the assessment of candidates cannot be measured properly without holding written test, it was not insisted upon as seriously as with the plea of time allotted to a candidate in the interview. 6. The petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit by contending, inter alia, that the Subject Expert was away from the interview on 11.3.2008 at about 12.30 PM for a Guest Lecture on the topic of Nursing Ethics and as such the interview proceeded, for not less than one hour, without the Subject Expert. CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS: 7. An exhaustive affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting and disputing the averments/contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition and also explaining the case of the respondents. An objection has been raised by the respondents about the genuineness of the candidature of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and, consequently, questioned their locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the notification and the DPC referred to above, which was held between 8-12, March 2008. The respondents asserted in para-4 of their affidavit in no uncertain term that the Sl. No. 573, which was claimed as the Sl. No. of the petitioner No. 1, is a Sl. No. allotted to one Dithianniang of Hill Town and Sl. No. 578, which the petitioner No. 2 claims as her Sl. No. is the Sl. No. of one Regina of Tuibung Forest Gate and as such petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are not the candidates for the DPC referred to above and, consequently, they have no right to challenge the notification and the DPC. 8. No. 578, which the petitioner No. 2 claims as her Sl. No. is the Sl. No. of one Regina of Tuibung Forest Gate and as such petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are not the candidates for the DPC referred to above and, consequently, they have no right to challenge the notification and the DPC. 8. With reference to the averments/allegations that there could not have been sufficient time available to interview 400 candidates in a day, a chart based on record, not disputed by the petitioners, is shown in the affidavit and the same is reproduced herein below: Sl. No. Date Sl. No. of candidates Candidates Present No. of candidates interviewed Left over candidates 1. 8.3.2008 1-400 262 178 84 2. 9.3.2008 401-800 238 204+84 (left over of 8.3.2008) = 288 34 3. 10.3.2008 801-1200 270 202+34 (left over of 9.3.2008) = 236 68 4. 11.3.2008 1201-1600 256 195+68 (left over of 10.3.2008) = 263 61 5. 12.3.2008 1601-1801 93 93+61 (left over of 11.3.2008) = 154 Nil 9. Respondents, further, state that Annexure-K/2 to R/5 are the notices issued by the Director, KIMS for re-scheduling the time for interview from 9th March, 2008 to 12th March, 2008 and as per these notices, the interview started at 8.30AM and continued up to 9.00 PM, except on 8.3.2008 on which day, the interview started at 10.00 AM and continued upto 8.00 PM. The above reproduced chart, which is not disputed by the petitioners, would demonstrate the actual number of candidates present for the interview on the dates shown in the calendar. The above chart would, further, show that the candidates, who could not be interviewed on a particular day, were carried over on the next day as left-over candidates. Thus, the question of interviewing 400 candidates in a day did not arise at all. 10. Total marks for the DPC is 50 and this 50 marks is divided into 4 factors as per the affidavit of the respondents, which is not disputed by the petitioners, and the allocation of marks is reproduced herein below: 1. Experience : 10 marks - [ (i) 10 marks for more than 3 yrs experience. (ii) 5 marks for up to 3 yrs. experience] 2. Personality & Command : 10 marks. 3. Subject : 20 marks. Knowledge 4. G.K. 10 marks. Total = 50 marks. 11. Experience : 10 marks - [ (i) 10 marks for more than 3 yrs experience. (ii) 5 marks for up to 3 yrs. experience] 2. Personality & Command : 10 marks. 3. Subject : 20 marks. Knowledge 4. G.K. 10 marks. Total = 50 marks. 11. It is stated by the respondents that altogether 1119 candidates, out of 1801 applicants, appeared for the interview, which was held for 5 days, i.e., w.e.f. 8.3.2008 to 12.3.2008. The interview was held from 8.30 AM to 9.00 PM on all the days, except on 8.3.2008, on which day the interview was held from 10.00 AM to 8.00 P.M. Altogether 3090 minutes were spent during 5 days of interview and an average of 2m 46sec (a little less than 3 minutes) was spent on each candidate by the DPC for testing suitability. It is, further, stated that the first two factors, which consists of 20 marks do not require time and the time required in the interview is only in respect of the last two factors, which comprises of 20+10 = 30 marks only. In addition to the academic qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules, all the candidates did possess professional diploma or above in General Nursing and Midwifery and the factor of 20 marks for Subject Knowledge is to be confined only to the professional knowledge of the candidates, who are well qualified and professionally trained to be Staff Nurse. The remaining 10 marks is to be confined to General Knowledge, which need not be exhaustive and time consuming, like that of the interview for administrative posts and posts requiring wide knowledge of events. Thus, it is submitted by the respondents that 3 minutes or a little less than 3 minutes time was sufficient to test the proficiency/suitability of a candidate, who applied for selection of Staff Nurse and there is no illegality in the process. 12. It is, further, asserted by the respondents that as the recruitment rules do not mandate holding of written test, there was no legal obligation to hold written test and the post of Staff Nurse, being a Group 'C' Post, experience, personality, subject knowledge and general knowledge tested with interview and observation is enough to select a candidate for the post. It is, further, asserted by the respondents that as the recruitment rules do not mandate holding of written test, there was no legal obligation to hold written test and the post of Staff Nurse, being a Group 'C' Post, experience, personality, subject knowledge and general knowledge tested with interview and observation is enough to select a candidate for the post. In order to ascertain whether written test had been held in the past for selection and appointment of Staff Nurse, though the relevant recruitment rules is silent on the mode of selection, this Court by an order dated 25.6.2008 directed the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 to inform the court about the past practice and the required information was placed in the form of a compilation with copies to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. As per the instructions, contained in the compilation, there were only two regular recruitments for Staff Nurse in the last 10 years, one in the year 1999 and another is the one, which is the subject-matter in the instant case. It is also unequivocally stated in the instructions that all the recruitments for regular appointment to Staff Nurse so far held in RIMS, were made only on the basis of viva-voce test/oral interview, in other words, without any written test. It is, further, stated that in so far on contract appointment is concerned, there had been 3 recruitments for contract appointment as Staff Nurse, and in case of two cases there was written test and in case of one, there was no written test. 13. The respondents have also clarified in their affidavits that Miss. Lalfamkimi, Subject Expert, did deliver a lecture during lunch time and an additional time of 20 minutes was taken after lunch and the allegation that the DPC continued without the subject expert was strongly denied and disputed. 14. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners 1 and 2 were neither candidates for the DPC nor were the Sl. Nos., as claimed by the petitioners, the Sl. Nos. allotted to them as discussed above and, as a result, the petitioners 1 and 2 were strangers to the notification and the DPC, referred to above and they have no locus standi to challenge the notices dated 27.2.2008 and 1.3.2008 and the DPC for recruitment of Staff Nurse. Nos., as claimed by the petitioners, the Sl. Nos. allotted to them as discussed above and, as a result, the petitioners 1 and 2 were strangers to the notification and the DPC, referred to above and they have no locus standi to challenge the notices dated 27.2.2008 and 1.3.2008 and the DPC for recruitment of Staff Nurse. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions, respondents submit that what is to be considered by the court is only the right of the petitioner No. 3, who took a chance to appear before the DPC and after finding herself not doing well in the DPC, she could not turn back and file the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the DPC. Further case of the respondents is that, in such a situation, the petitioner No. 3 is estopped and precluded from challenging the proceedings of the DPC once she, appeared in the DPC without any protest or demur. ISSUES/QUESTION OF LAWS: 15. From the narration of facts and discussions made above and after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the following issues and questions of law emerge for consideration of the court: (i) Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether there is any legal obligation, in terms of the extant recruitment rules, for the RIMS authority to hold written test for recruitment to grade 'C' post of Staff Nurse in RIMS or not ? (ii) Whether any effective relief can be granted by the court in the absence of challenging the relevant recruitment rules for the post of Staff Nurse, which does not mandate the respondents to hold written test or to follow a particular mode of selection? (iii) Whether the writ petition is founded on incorrect premises of facts and/or the writ petition suffers from want of locus standi of the petitioners? (iv) Whether the court would interfere with the DPC proceedings on the ground of insufficiency of time spent on the candidates in the interview, keeping in view that only 30 mark is allocated for interview of factor Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., Subject Matter and General Knowledge, or not? (v) Whether the petitioner No. 3, who took a chance to appear before the DPC without any protest/demur, is precluded/estopped from challenging the proceedings of the DPC or not? 16. With reference to issue Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., Subject Matter and General Knowledge, or not? (v) Whether the petitioner No. 3, who took a chance to appear before the DPC without any protest/demur, is precluded/estopped from challenging the proceedings of the DPC or not? 16. With reference to issue Nos. 1 and 2, as formulated above, admittedly the extant recruitment rules of 1999 is silent as to the mode of selection of the Staff Nurse. The recruitment rules simply stipulates that recruitment should be by selection method but it is silent about the mode of selection thereby giving an option to the authority either to test the suitability of candidates through viva-voce test or through a combined test of written examination and viva-voce. Admittedly, the relevant recruitment rules of 1999 has not been challenged by the petitioners, leave alone any whisper on the arbitrariness of the rules and as such, the selection of Staff Nurse on the basis of oral interview cannot be faulted as the recruitment rules does not mandate the respondents to hold written test or to follow a particular mode of selection. In support of the aforesaid contention of the respondents, a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sardara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 2248 is pressed into service by the respondents, wherein the Apex Court held in para-7 that in the absence of any mandate by the rules, it is the option of the authority either to conduct a written test or viva-voce or both. Para-7 is reproduced as hereunder: 7. It is then contended that the written test, conducted by the previous service selection Board, was abandoned on only oral interviews were conducted. The selection, therefore, is illegal. Normally it may be desirable to conduct written test and in particular handwriting that which is vital for a Patwari whose primary duty is to record clearly entries in revenue records followed by oral interview. The rules do not mandate to have both. Options were given either to conduct written test or viva-voce or both. In this case the Committee adopted for viva-voce as a method to select the candidate which cannot be said to be illegal. 17. The petitioners have not been able to show any authority that written test should precede viva-voce test in all the DPCs, even in case where the rules are silent on the mode of selection. In this case the Committee adopted for viva-voce as a method to select the candidate which cannot be said to be illegal. 17. The petitioners have not been able to show any authority that written test should precede viva-voce test in all the DPCs, even in case where the rules are silent on the mode of selection. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that when the rules are silent as to the mode of selection and in the absence of challenging the rules, holding the field, it is the discretion/option of the authority either to conduct written test or to hold viva-voce test and as such holding viva-voce test/oral test for selection of Staff Nurse in RIMS cannot be faulted inasmuch as the mode of selection resorted to by the RIMS's authority is within the permissibility of the extant recruitment rules and, accordingly, issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative. 18. With reference to issue No. 3, it is noticed that the contentions of the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 were the candidates for the DPC with interview Sl. Nos. 573 and 578 respectively were negatived by the respondents on the ground that the Sl. Nos. mentioned above as claimed by the petitioners 1 and 2, are the Sl. Nos. allotted to one Dithianniang of Hill Town and one Regina of Tuibung Forest Gate, and as such, the petitioners 1 and 2 are strangers to the entire proceedings of the DPC and they have no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of the DPC. The aforesaid assertion of the respondents is not disputed by the petitioners 1 and 2 and this leaves the court to reasonably conclude that this writ petition is not filed with clean hand and the writ petition is founded on incorrect factual premises. Further, it appears that the petitioners were carried by the number of candidates to be interviewed in a day as shown in the notice dated 1.3.2008, which is extracted in para-2.5 of this judgment. Perhaps, the petitioners did not bother to check and verify whether the number of candidates given in the aforesaid notice were actually interviewed by the DPC or not before filing the instant writ petition. Perhaps, the petitioners did not bother to check and verify whether the number of candidates given in the aforesaid notice were actually interviewed by the DPC or not before filing the instant writ petition. The chart extracted in para-8 of this judgment will establish and confirm, in the absence of any dispute to the figures shown therein, that only 1119, out of 1801 candidates who applied for selection, did appear before the DPC, and this works out that only 62% of the total number of applicants appeared before the DPC. Further, the highest number of candidates interviewed on any of the 5 days of the DPC, is 270 and the lowest number of candidates interviewed is 93. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the writ petitioners have painted wrong figure of candidates, who were actually interviewed on each day of the 5 days of the DPC and the averments and the pleadings in the writ petition were on mere presumption that 400 candidates were interviewed in a day and that the time allotted to each candidate is about a minute or less than a minute and therefore, the DPC was unfair and unreasonable. From the above discussions, it admits no doubt that the writ petition was founded on incorrect premises of facts and on presumption of facts, which are contrary to ground reality and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count also. 19. With reference to issue Nos. 4 and 5, they are inter related and as such they are taken up together. Having already decided the questions raised in issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, in other words, it was perfectly legal and within the permissibility of the relevant recruitment rules to select candidates for Staff Nurse only on the basis of oral test, the further consideration is on the sufficiency or insufficiency of the time allotted to a candidate in the interview. 20. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that if 400 candidates are interviewed in a day, i.e., from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM, i.e., 7 hours which is equal to 420 minutes and this 420 minutes being divided amongst 400 candidates in a day, it may work out that time spent on a candidate is less than one minute. 20. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that if 400 candidates are interviewed in a day, i.e., from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM, i.e., 7 hours which is equal to 420 minutes and this 420 minutes being divided amongst 400 candidates in a day, it may work out that time spent on a candidate is less than one minute. It may not be necessary to restate the facts already discussed above to prove that the presumption of number of candidates interviewed in a day is incorrect and we will refer to those facts if it is still required to do so. To buttress contentions raised in the writ petition, the writ petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court reported in [Satpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206; Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722 ; Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 786 and Asok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 454 ]. 21. In Satpal's case (supra), the matter relates to selection of Patwaris, a grade-Ill post of Revenue Department of the Haryana Government. The number of candidates interviewed in a day by the DPC was between 400 to 600 and time spent/devoted to a candidate by the DPC is a minute or less than a minute. In a total of 100 marks, 85 marks was allotted for viva-voce test and 15 marks was for educational qualification and selection was through oral test alone. Time spent, i.e., one minute or less than a minute on a candidate against the allocation of 85 marks and interview of 400 to 600 candidates in a day were found arbitrary by the Apex Court and allocation of 85 marks for viva-voce test in a total of 100 marks for the DPC was also found by the Apex Court on the higher side. This case has been explained and distinguished in a recent case decided by the Apex Court and reported in 2008, which shall be dealt with in the later part of this judgment. This case has been explained and distinguished in a recent case decided by the Apex Court and reported in 2008, which shall be dealt with in the later part of this judgment. In Ajay Hasia's case (supra), the question involved therein is allocation of 50 marks for oral interview against 100 marks on written test for selection of a candidate for admission in the engineering course and the Supreme Court found that in the matter of selection of candidates for undergoing engineering course, it is safer to rely upon the educational qualification and the written test and if at all viva-voce test is to be included as one of the components of the test, the viva-voce test should not exceed more than 15% of the total marks. In the instant case, the selection is held in terms of the relevant recruitment rules, which has statutory force and there is no question that the marks allocated for viva-voce is disproportionately mismatched with the marks allocated for the written test and that apart, the present case is a case for selection to a post, which is governed by rules framed under law and as such the facts of Ajay Hasia is distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. In the case of Inder Parkash Gupta (supra), the question involved and examined by the Apex Court is whether the Public Service Commission has the competency and jurisdiction to frame procedural rules for giving marks to games and sports, NCC and allocating 100 marks for viva-voce contrary to the statutory recruitment rules and stipulations made therein. The Apex Court held that the Public Service Commission could not make rules contrary to the extant statutory rules and therefore, the cases of Ajay Hasia and Inder Parkash Gupta (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In Asok Kumar Yadav's case (supra), the case relates to selection of Haryana Civil Service Executive and Allied Services by the Haryana Public Service Commission and the rules for the civil service provide how viva-voce is to be conducted and 200 marks was provided for viva-voce and the allegation of bias is one of the main issues in the case and as such, the case has hardly anything to do with the case in hand, the subject-matter of which is governed by its own rules. 22. 22. Per contra, the respondents submit that giving 3 minutes or a little less than 3 minutes time for each candidate for selection of Staff Nurse, who are professionally trained and qualified to become Staff Nurse, is perfectly legal and it is in consonance with the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in Sadananda Halo and Ors. v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 619 . This case arose from the Gauhati High Court, where the selection process to the post of Police Constable had been interfered with by this Court on many grounds and some of the grounds, which came to be considered by the Apex Court, are pertinent to the determination of issue No. 4 in the present case. In this case, 50% marks allotted for viva-voce test was complained against as high and excessive. The 50 marks were distributed to six factors, each factor having its own marks and after distribution of marks over the six factors like, educational qualifications, smartness, general ambience in reading writing, extra qualifications, proficiency in sports and martial arts, only 20 marks was left for oral, viva-voce test. The Apex Court held that nothing was wrong in allotting 50% marks in the viva-voce test and even less than 3 minutes time was enough to test the suitability of a candidate in the viva-voce test. In this case, in paras-38 & 39 of the "judgment, the Apex Court has distinguished the cases of Satpal (supra) and Asok Kumar Yadav (supra), which were also relied upon by the present petitioners in the present case. The Apex Court held that in Satpal's case (supra) the post of Patwari, which is a basic revenue officer in the village, has to maintain revenue records and also must have knowledge of records and that apart, the fact of interviewing of 400 to 600 candidates in a day were the factors taken into consideration by the Apex Court in Satpal's case and allowing one minute or less than a minute to a candidate for a total mark of 85 which was earmarked for viva-voce, was contrary to meaningful and purposive assessment of the knowledge and suitability of each candidate. In the case of Satpal, candidates with general educational qualification have to be interviewed from open market with varying backgrounds; whereas in the present case, the oral interview is to be confined to a group of professionally qualified candidates and therefore, the requirements of the two are different from each other. Further, in the Asok Kumar Vadav's case (supra), the Apex Court in the aforesaid recent case, has distinguished the case on the ground that Asok Kumur Yaduu's case was more, particularly, on bias, aspersions on character, integrity and competence of the Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission and at any rate, post involved was a Class-I Gazetted post for which 200 marks was provided for viva-voce test and as such, the ratio laid down in the case is not applicable in the present case. The Apex Court has relied upon the principles laid in Sardara Singh and Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that the ratio in Asok Kumar Yadau's case (supra) is not applicable even in the case of selection of Patwari. In the case of Sadananda Halo (supra), the question came up before the court was that instead of interviewing 250 candidates in a day, which was the bench mark fixed by the learned Single Bench, 500 candidates were interviewed in a day in Sonitpur District and also candidates beyond 250 were interviewed in Berpeta and Dhubri Districts and on this ground, the selection was faulted and set aside, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Apex Court reversed the judgments of the Single Bench as well as of the Division Bench of this Court by holding that interview of about 3 minutes for a candidate for 20 marks is reasonable and by distinguishing the case of Satpal (supra), the ratio laid down in Sardara Singh's case (supra) was accepted. In the present case, at hand, as already discussed above, the actual viva-voce test is confined to 30 marks out of 50 marks for oral test and again out of this 30 marks, 20 marks is on the subject-matter for which all candidates are professionally trained and qualified and 10 marks is for General Knowledge and it is hard to believe that a candidate for Staff Nurse should possess enormous general knowledge. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that Satpal's case (supra) is not applicable in the case at hand and this Court is of the further opinion that the ratio laid down in Sadananda Halo's case is squarely applicable in the present case. That apart, there is no departure in the method of selection followed by DPC from the past practice. Having considered the latest decision of the Supreme Court on the issue and the facts stated above, I do not find that there is any infirmity in providing 3 minutes or a little less than 3 minutes by the DPC for interview of a candidate, particularly in the nature of the post concerned. 23. There is no averment/allegation that there was a bias, mala fide in the selection process and that questions asked by the DPC were absolutely irrelevant and the whole DPC was a sham and in such circumstances, it will be pertinent to cite the following two cases: Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Roshan Lal and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 765 and Union of India v. Bikash Kumar. (2006) 8 SCC 192 . Relevant portion of para-5 of the judgment in the case of Joginder Singh and Ors. (supra) is reproduced herein below: 5....The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to act as an appellate authority over the decision of the Departmental Selection Committee. If the Committee has been properly constituted, as in this case, and the post is advertised and a selection process known to law which is fair to all, is followed, then the High Court could have no jurisdiction to go into a question whether the Departmental Selection Committee conducted the test properly or not when there is no allegation of mala fide or bias against any member of the Committee. Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Normally experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person.... Again, para-14 of the case in Union of India v. Bikash Kumar, is reproduced herein below: 14. Normally experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person.... Again, para-14 of the case in Union of India v. Bikash Kumar, is reproduced herein below: 14. When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice. The aforesaid two cases were also discussed by the Apex Court in Sadananda Halo and Ors. (supra), where the Apex Court held that a roving enquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible and the High Court cannot be allowed to indulge in any fact-finding exercise inasmuch as the court is to decide a case on the pleaded case of the parties. In view of the above, the issue No. 4 is answered in the negative. 24. It is submitted by the respondents that in a catena of cases, the Apex Court held that once a candidate takes a calculated risk of appearing in a DPC, he cannot turn around and challenge the selection process by filing a writ petition either when he is not successful in the selection process or when he feels that he may not be successful in the recruitment examination. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 the Apex Court held in para-24 of the judgment as "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 the Apex Court held in para-24 of the judgment as "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination." In Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 it was held by the Apex Court in para-9 in the following words: "In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, it has been clearly laid down by a bench of 3 learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination, he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petition." In Union of India v. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 the Apex Court held in para-18 in the following words: "It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same." 25. In the recent case, reported in Dhananjoy Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 the Apex court held that once the writ petitioner participated in the selection process without any demur they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the rules. Relevant para-9 is reproduced below: 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done. 26. In (2008) 4 SCC 619 , which was referred to in the early part of this judgment while considering issue No. 4, the Apex Court held in para-35. This has not been done. 26. In (2008) 4 SCC 619 , which was referred to in the early part of this judgment while considering issue No. 4, the Apex Court held in para-35. in the following words : "This is apart from the fact that the unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process could not turn back and call names to the system". The ratio laid down by the cases discussed above is that if a person has taken a calculated risk of appearing before a selection process without any protest or demur to the procedures adopted by the authorities in the selection process, he cannot turn around and challenge the selection process when he is unsuccessful in the selection or when he feels that he is likely be unsuccessful in the selection process. In such circumstances, a person is estopped and precluded from challenging the selection process. Legal position being as discussed above, the petitioner No. 3 in response to the advertisement/notification got herself enrolled as a candidate and appeared before tine DPC without any demur and as such she is precluded from challenging the selection process. 27. For the reasons discussed herein-above and findings arrived at on the issues formulated by the court, I do not find any merit in the case at hand, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.