Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1216 (PAT)

Sudhir Kumar Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-11

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. I. A. No.2684 of 2010 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of one Krishna Kant Singh @ Chhote seeking leave of this Court for allowing his intervention in this appeal on the ground that his case stands almost on the same footing as that of the appellants herein. 2. In this regard it was sought to be explained by Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the intervener on the basis of two documents enclosed with the intervener application that the aforesaid Krishna Kant Singh was also initially appointed on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant by Mr. A. A. Mallick on 16.2.1987 and was removed from service on 13.4.1993 on the ground that his appointment was illegal being violative of the rules and procedure of appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant and in complete breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The intervener claims subsequently that he too in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in (1997) 2 SCC 1 was called for interview by the Bihar Public Service Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) by letter No.506 dated 9.3.2000 but was ultimately not selected. It has thus been convassed that he should be impleaded as a party to this appeal and be given same relief as that to unsuccessful appellants-writ petitioners of L. P. A. No.19 of 2007 and therefore he may also be allowed to be impleaded as an appellant and/or made party for giving the same relief. 3. Having considered the averments made in this application as also upon hearing of learned counsel for the proposed intervener, Krishna Kant Singh @ Chhote, this Court is of the opinion that he cannot be now added as a party to assail the order of the learned single Judge inasmuch as he had not joined the appellants-writ petitioners, who being conscious to their cause, had immediately filed a writ petition after completion of selection process by the Commission and consequential appointments made by the State Government in terms of the recommendations of the Commission. 4. 4. Let it be noted that there is also no whisper in the petition explaining the delay of almost 10 years in approaching this Court by the proposed intervener, whose writ petition if at all filed after a gap of 10 years for the relief being sought through this intervention application, could have been rejected on the ground of unexplained delay of 10 years. 5. That apart, the intervention application has been filed on 18.3.2010 in an appeal which has already been admitted for final hearing and in which the respondents State Government and the Commission have filed a detailed counter affidavit dealing with the individual cases of the appellant-writ petitioners of L. P. A. No.19 of 2007. Thus, now when this appeal is sought to be finally disposed of it would be wholly unpragmatic and impracticale to allow such belated intervention of the proposed intervener much less permitting him to be joined as an appellant to L. P. A. No.19 of 2007. 6. Thus for the reasons indicated above, we are not inclined to allow intervention of Krishna Kant Singh @ Chhote. I. A. No.2684 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed. L. P. A. No.19 of 2007 7. Heard Mr. S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, Mr. Prabhakar Tekeriwal, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Commission as also Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.6. 8. In this intra-court appeal, an order of the learned single Judge dated 19.10.2006 passed in C. W. J. C. No.12410 of 2000 has been assailed by the appellants-writ petitioners primarily on the ground that they were wrongly denied the appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant in the selection process undertaken by the Commission and the consequential appointments made by the State Government of Bihar. 9. The learned single Judge having given a detailed consideration to the case of the appellants-writ petitioners has rejected their such prayer by holding that there was neither any infirmity in the selection process and/or recommendations of the Commission nor in the consequential appointments made by the Government. 10. Mr. S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants- writ petitioners however has made elaborate submissions while assailing the order of learned single Judge. 10. Mr. S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants- writ petitioners however has made elaborate submissions while assailing the order of learned single Judge. His main line of attack is that the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) with regard to process of selection and appointment was not followed in letter and spirit, as a result whereof genuine and better meritorious candidates like the appellants-writ petitioners could not be recommended by the Commission and appointed by the Government on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant. He has also assailed the appointments of respondent nos.6 to 104 by taking a plea that they were not as meritorious as the appellants-writ petitioners and further that some of them did not possess the basic qualification for the post of Tuberculosis Assistant. A faint submission in this regard was also made by the counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners with regard to the norms of selection adopted by the Commission by taking a plea that the post of Tuberculosis Assistant was a technical post and therefore the Commission ought to have conducted their selection by holding an examination for assessing their technical skill in stead of holding a written test of general nature followed by interview. 11. Mr. Prabhakar Tekeriwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission while supporting the order of the learned single Judge and also placing reliance on the counter-affidavit filed in this appeal, have submitted that such selection procedure was fair and uniform for all the candidates. In this context it has been explained that such selection was confined only to those employees including Tuberculosis Assistants whose appointments made in the regime of Mr. A. A. Mallick, the then Deputy Director of Tuberculosis were found to be illegal leading to their consequential order of termination which was affirmed by this Court as also by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra ). A. A. Mallick, the then Deputy Director of Tuberculosis were found to be illegal leading to their consequential order of termination which was affirmed by this Court as also by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra ). They have also submitted that it was in terms of the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) that the State Government and the Commission had completed the fresh exercise for selection and appointment amongst similarly situated terminated employees by publishing advertisement in the newspaper, holding written test and interview and making appointment on the basis of recommendation of the Commission against the available sanctioned posts by strictly following the Government policy of roaster and reservation. 12. Mr. Tekariwal in this context has also submitted that the whole process of selection and appointment was being constantly monitored by this Court in view of the directions of the Apex Court and in course of such monitoring an order was ultimately passed on 25.1.2006 in MJC No.2828 of 1998 holding that the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) had been fully complied. Thus, counsel for the respondents have contended that the grievance of the appellants-writ petitioners as with regard to non-compliance of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) cannot be reagitated in view of dropping of the contempt proceeding by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order dated 25.1.2006 in MJC No.2828 of 1998. 13. Counsel for the respondents by placing details of marks secured by the appellants-writ petitioners have also sought to demonstrate that as they had secured lesser marks in comparison to the recommended and appointed candidates and were placed below in the merit list, prepared on the basis of marks secured in the written test and interview, they could not be permitted to assail the process of selection after taking a chance in such selection process. 14. 14. Before we enter into the merits aforementioned submissions, it would relevant to note that the appellants-writ petitioners had filed the connected writ petition on 30.11.2000 for the following reliefs:- i. to quash the final result published by B. P. S. C. as well as entire selection process envisaged for the post of T. B. Assistant (Yakshma Sahayak) of category No.10 of Advertisement No.01/97 which has been published in daily Newspaper AAJ on 13.5.2000 by which various illegalities and irregularities adopted by the commission in selection process without following the direction of Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.1078-59 of 1995 on 16.12.96 and also on the ground by which so many discrepancies and anomalies detected by the members of the Commission in the entire selection process. ii. To direct the respondent nos.3 and 4 to adopt reasonable procedure as per the rule/guidelines prescribed for the selection process by the Apex Court in accordance with law reported in 1997 (I) PLJR 59 (S. C.) instead of B. P. S. C. on the ground that the commission adopted irrational, unreasonable process for the selection of ex-employee of T. B. (Health ). iii. To direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners and others for the post of T. B. (Assistant ) against the sanctioned post and by adopting reasonable process of selection as per item no. (5) of the said Advertisement and select the petitioners and like others on the basis of only 125 candidates after recommendation made by three members of selection committee in terms of Govt. Order dated 25.3.1983 and on the report and recommendation of the said committee on 14.2.87. iv. To direct the respondent- State authority to select all the candidates on merit after making the preliminary scrutiny of the credentials of the candidates they might have been appointed by Dr. Mallick, the then Deputy Director (Health Services) Bihar, Patna and in the light that they have performed continuously more than three years of service on that very post meritoriously and honestly. . 15 The learned single Judge on the basis of the pleadings on record had dismissed the writ petition by holding that there was no infirmity in the selection process undergone. The learned single Judge also refused to interfere that the appointments already made in terms of selection because the successful candidates were not made party to the writ applications. . 15 The learned single Judge on the basis of the pleadings on record had dismissed the writ petition by holding that there was no infirmity in the selection process undergone. The learned single Judge also refused to interfere that the appointments already made in terms of selection because the successful candidates were not made party to the writ applications. However, learned single Judge as with regard to the grievance of the appellants-writ petitioners that the selected and appointed candidates on the post of Tuberculosis assistant did not fulfil the requisite qualification, of being trained from Government Institute, had left the matter open by giving liberty to the petitioners to point out such infirmity to the Government in which case the same was to be looked into by the respondents. In this regard it has to be noted that when this appeal was filed against the aforesaid impugned order of learned single Judge dated 19.10.2006, this Court in view of the prayer made by the appellants-writ petitioners for adding the successful candidates who had already been appointed on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant way back in the year 2000 had granted permission to add them as parties to the appeal by an order dated 26.7.2007 and that is how respondent no.7 to 104 were impleaded as parties to this appeal and notices were issued to them. The appeal was subsequently admitted by an order dated 20.3.2009 and has been now placed before us for its final hearing. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the first attack of the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners as with regard to selection and appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant of respondent nos.6 to 104 to be bad on the ground of violation of directions of the Apex Court must be rejected not only because a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 25.1.2006 in MJC No.2828 of 1998 had found such directions of the Apex Court given in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) to the complied in letter and spirit but also because whatever has been submitted by Mr. Verma as with regard to the alleged violation by the respondents in conducting selection and making appointment on the post of Tuberculosis even otherwise has no merit. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) while holding the appointment made by Mr. Verma as with regard to the alleged violation by the respondents in conducting selection and making appointment on the post of Tuberculosis even otherwise has no merit. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) while holding the appointment made by Mr. A. A. Mallick to be rank illegal had recorded that there were only 2250 post in the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme whereas Mr. A. A. Mallick had gone to make appointment of more than 6000 employees on class III and Class IV posts. The detailed findings recorded by the Apex Court as with regard to such illegal appointments as recorded in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) need not be gone into for the purposes of this appeal but then in order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants-writ petitioners it would be necessary to quote paragraph 18 and 19 of the judgment which reads as follows:- . .18. Now is the time for us to take stock of the situation in the light of our answers to the aforesaid three points. As a logical corollary to these answers the appeals are liable to be dismissed as the decision of the High Court is found to be well sustained. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to sustain services of these appellants on humanitarian grounds cannot be countenanced. When 6000 appointees are found to have been illegally loaded on the State Exchequer by Dr. Mallick and when there were only 2250 sanctioned posts, in the absence of clear data as to who were the seniormost and which were the sanctioned posts available at the relevant time against which they could be fitted, it would be impossible to undertake even a jettisoning operation to offload the removable load of excess employees amounting to 3750 by resorting to any judicial surgery. Once the source of their recruitment is found to be tainted all of them have to go by the board. Once the source of their recruitment is found to be tainted all of them have to go by the board. Nor can we say that benefit can be made available only to 1363 appellants before us as the other employees similarly circumscribed and who might not have approached the High Court or this Court earlier and who may be waiting in the wings would also be entitled to claim similar relief against the State which has to give equal treatment to all of them otherwise it would be held guilty of discriminatory treatment which could not be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. Everything, therefore, must start on a clean slate. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the doctrine of tempering justice with mercy also cannot be pressed in service on the peculiar facts of these cases as mercy also has to be based on justice. The decision of this Court in the case of H. C. Puttaswamy also can be of no assistance to the appellants on the facts of the present cases as in that case the Chief Justice of the High Court had full financial powers to create any number of vacancies on the establishment of the High Court as required and to fill them up. There was no ceiling on his such powers. Therefore, the initial entry of the appointees could not be said to be unauthorized or vitiated or tainted. The fault that was found was the manner in which after recruitment they were passed on the establishments of subordinate courts. That exercise remained vitiated. But as the original entries in High Court service were not unauthorized these candidates/employees were permitted to be regularized. Such is not the present case. The initial entry of the employees is itself unauthorized being not against sanctioned vacancies nor was Dr. Mallick entrusted with the power of creating vacancies or posts for the schemes under the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme. Consequently the termination of the services of all these appellants cannot be found fault with. Nor any relief as claimed by them of reinstatement with continued service can be made available to them. 19. However, there is one human aspect which calls for our attention on the facts of the present cases. These 6000 employees got employed by Dr. Mallick over at least a decade. Nor any relief as claimed by them of reinstatement with continued service can be made available to them. 19. However, there is one human aspect which calls for our attention on the facts of the present cases. These 6000 employees got employed by Dr. Mallick over at least a decade. Many of them served for a number of years and got confirmed. They would naturally have their families to support. For no fault of theirs they found themselves stranded in life midstream. Many might have got overaged. As Dr. Dhavan pointed out, many of them also got trained under the second phase of the Programme, as he would like to style it, pursuant to the Government Order dated 31.01.1987 referred to by us earlier. Under these circumstances justice would require that some effort to salvage their situation if possible may be made when the State undertakes a fresh exercise to fill up the sanctioned posts under the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme which has come to stay. We are informed that tuberculosis is still not eradicated in the State of Bihar and the Programme is to last for a couple of years more and may be it may assume a semi-permanent status. It was also not disputed that there are 2250 sanctioned posts or it may be that some more sanctioned posts may see the light of the day in near future. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent-State informed us that the State proposes to start on a clean slate and after following due procedure of recruitment would certainly recruit Class III and Class IV employees on the sanctioned vacancies and posts which will have to be filled up for making the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme effective and fully operative. When that is the need of the day, it would be appropriate to direct the State to undertake that exercise at the earliest and while doing so after following the due procedure of recruitment and the rules governing the same, give an opportunity to these 6000 unfortunate creatures of Dr. When that is the need of the day, it would be appropriate to direct the State to undertake that exercise at the earliest and while doing so after following the due procedure of recruitment and the rules governing the same, give an opportunity to these 6000 unfortunate creatures of Dr. Mallick to compete for the said posts in the future recruitment that may be undertaken by the State and in the process because of the experience which they have gathered in their past service under the Tuberculosis Programme and the training which they might have received pursuant to the Government Order dated 31.01.1987, due weightage also be given to them while considering their eligibility for being recruited in service as and when such future exercise is undertaken. Consequently we deem it fit to issue the following directions to the respondent-State of Bihar in this connection: 1. Respondent-State of Bihar may start at the earliest a fresh exercise for recruiting Class III and Class IV employees in the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme undertaken by the State as a part of 20-Point Programme on the available 2250 vacancies or even more vacancies, as the case may be, preferably within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order.2. Towards the said exercise the State will publish a notice in all the newspapers having circulation in the State inviting applications for direct recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts for filing up these vacancies in the said Programme.3. Similarly names may also be called for from the Employment Exchange concerned for such recruitment.4. If no statutory body composed of high-ranked officials for recruitment to Class III and Class IV employees is in vogue, the State is directed to constitute a committee consisting of three members, viz. , (a) a member of the Public Service Commission; (b) a senior IAS officer, i. e. , the Additional or Joint Secretary of the Health Department; and (c) a senior officer, i. e. , the Director or Additional Director of Health Services, to select the candidates. The Additional or Joint Secretary of Health Department shall be the Chairman of the Committee.5. The respondent-State will constitute such a committee preferably within three months of the receipt of this order.6. It would be open to all the appellants or those appointed by Dr. The Additional or Joint Secretary of Health Department shall be the Chairman of the Committee.5. The respondent-State will constitute such a committee preferably within three months of the receipt of this order.6. It would be open to all the appellants or those appointed by Dr. Mallick who might not have challenged their termination orders before any competent court uptil now, to apply for selection to the Class III and Class IV posts concerned. The committee would in their cases as the first step, verify and satisfy itself of the credentials of such candidates whether they were appointed by Dr. Mallick and had worked at least for three years continuously. The committee would also satisfy itself that such candidate or candidates had honestly and meritoriously discharged their duties as Class III and Class IV appointees, at least for the said period.7. The committee may fix total number of marks to be obtained by the candidates for being treated to have passed the selection test. Any relaxation in the minimum eligibility marks to be obtained by the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates as found necessary may also be decided by the committee. The committee if satisfied about the credentials and other particulars of the appellants or those appointed by Dr. Mallick as mentioned in para (6) above, may allot additional marks to them for each of the three years and more for which they might have worked, at the rate of 2 marks for each completed year of continuous working, up to the maximum of 6 marks, for each candidate. Candidates appointed by Dr. Mallic who are found to have undertaken training pursuant to the Government direction dated 31.01.1987 may be awarded 2 additional marks for the training so received. Those 2 marks will be in addition to the 6 marks which are to be awarded on completion of meritorious and honest service by the employees concerned as mentioned above.8. If the candidates concerned who were earlier appointed by Dr. Those 2 marks will be in addition to the 6 marks which are to be awarded on completion of meritorious and honest service by the employees concerned as mentioned above.8. If the candidates concerned who were earlier appointed by Dr. Mallick are found by the committee to be otherwise eligible for being appointed to Class III and Class IV posts as per the relevant rules and regulations and if on the basis of the marks allotted to them as aforesaid they become eligible to be appointed besides other competing candidates, then if they are found to have become age-barred the condition of age for recruitment of such candidates should be relaxed appropriately so as to entitle such candidates to be considered for selection.9. The State Government shall arrange sittings of the Selection Committee preferably within two months form the last date prescribed for submitting the applications and for completion of the preliminary scrutiny of such applications. The Committee shall select all candidates on merits following the prescribed procedure in the appropriate circulars and rules and shall also follow the rules of reservation as in vogue and prepare the merit list and should submit it to the Government. While doing so the eligible candidates who were earlier appointed by Dr. Mallick and who received the marks for their past meritorious service and training as aforesaid will be considered for selection qua the other candidates in the light of the weightage of the marks as aforesaid and in that light the committee will select all the candidates on merits and will prepare the select list of candidates found fit to be appointed to the posts concerned.10. The committee will complete the process of selection preferably within three months from the date of its sittings for selection.11. An appropriate authority or the Government, as the case may be, will appoint preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of the merit list from the committee, the selected candidates as per roster and the merit list, on available vacancies, after due identification of the credentials of the candidates concerned as per its legally permissible procedure.12. In the event of selection and appointment of erstwhile daily-rated employee or employees, who were inducted by Dr. In the event of selection and appointment of erstwhile daily-rated employee or employees, who were inducted by Dr. Mallick, the entire proved period during which they had worked as daily-wager and/or confirmed employees will be computed for the purpose of pensionary and other retrial benefits but they will not be entitled to claim any inter se higher seniority in the selection made by the committee or for any promotion on the basis of their previous service. . 18. From the aforementioned directions of the Apex Court in paragraph 19 in particular in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), it would thus be clear that the Apex Court had given a one time opportunity to the terminated employees appointed earlier by Mr. A. A. Mallick to undergo a regular procedure of selection and in this regard respondents were directed to undergo such selection test after making advertisement in the newspaper, constituting selection committee and holding selection test as also giving certain weightage for the period of their experience earned earlier. Thus, it is clear that the Apex Court did not lay down that for appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant there had to be a special selection test for evaluation of their technical merits. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners in fact had also not been able to pin-point any specific violation of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court and his editorial comment on the selection test as directed by the Apex Court would always mean a specialized selection for the post of Tuberculosis Assistant has to be understood in the context of service rules regarding recruitment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant. 20. In this regard, it is not in dispute that there is no rule regarding recruitment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant prescribing a particular mode of examination. The qualification for the post of Tuberculosis Assistant being also only matriculation with completion of training in a Tuberculosis Centre, this Court would not find fault in the written test conducted by the Commission which was followed by interview. This aspect of the matter in fact has been clarified by the Commission in its counter-affidavit which being relevant for the purpose of this appeal is quoted hereinbelow:- 8. That it is to be mentioned that the appellants were applicant for the post of T. B. Assistant. This aspect of the matter in fact has been clarified by the Commission in its counter-affidavit which being relevant for the purpose of this appeal is quoted hereinbelow:- 8. That it is to be mentioned that the appellants were applicant for the post of T. B. Assistant. The appellants being successful in the screening Test, were called for interview along with other successful candidates. The interview was taken by a selection Committee consisting of T. B. Experts of the Health Deptt. , Bihar and out of 415 candidates interviewed against 125 posts, 123 suitable candidates were selected for recommendation and recommendation for appointment was sent accordingly vide Commissions letter no.103 dated 30.6.2000.9. That in accordance with the direction of the Honble Supreme Court appellants were given relaxation of age and additional marks for their experience and training according to formula prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court. The details of marks obtained by the appellants and cut off marks in their respective reservation categories are given below:- T. B. Assistant (Category 10 under Advt. No.01/97) 21 The counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners however has submitted that such selection norms was itself vitiated and in fact respondents did not make the screening of the selected and appointed candidates at least with regard to their training qualification inasmuch as it is claimed that most of them had not acquired their training from any government institute. In this context, he has cited the case of respondent nos.9, 33, 47, 48, 77, 78, 102 and 103 about whom it has been alleged that they had produced fake training certificate without reference of the letter of Deputy Director and to substantiate this aspect they have also enclosed their certificates vide Annexure-23 series to the reply to the counter affidavit. 22. Counsel for the State as with regard to the aforementioned grievance of the appellants-writ petitioners has placed reliance on the proceedings of Enquiry Committee which had gone into the issue of verification of certificate of educational qualification and training of the candidates and on the basis of the such proceeding as contained in Annexure- B and C it has been sought to be canvassed that the Government had found that amongst 104 candidates 91 of them had received their training under para medical course in the Tuberculosis Institute at Patna and as such upon verification of their certificate they were screened and ultimately appointed. With regard to the rest 13 of them the Enquiry Committee had also recorded that they had undergone training under the orders of the then Deputy Director of Tuberculosis at different districts Tuberculosis Centres and as such they were also treated to be valid, specially when all of them were also bagged by sufficient working experience. Counsel for the State however had pointed that even amongst 104 candidates who had appeared for their verification of certificate four of them had not produced required caste certificate and one of them had not produced his certificate for verification of date of birth and creamy layer certificate and as such they were not appointed despite the recommendation of the Commission. 23. This Court, therefore, is fully satisfied that in terms of the advertisement and the qualification prescribed therein for the post of Tuberculosis Assistant the Commission and the Government had carried out the selection in an objective manner even in respect of verification of experience certificate and such claim of the appellants as with regard to any discrepancy in the verification of training certificates is itself ruled out because when the Government had received report as with regard to forged certificate in respect of Kamal Kumar Chaudhary (respondent no.104) his appointment was cancelled by an order dated 27.1.2006 vide Annexure C/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondent State. 24. It has also to be noted herein that after the impugned order was passed by learned single Judge with certain observation made therein, by a specific Letter No.915 dated 19.12.2006 of the State Government issued by the Director of Health Services vide Annexure- D to the same counter affidavit had sought information from the appellant writ petitioners as with regard to any illegality in the selection and appointment of the respondents no.6 to 104 but they did not choose to file any response thereto. In that view of the matter while this Court would not like to put any final word as with regard to the allegation of the appellants-writ petitioners in respect of the forged training certificate of respondent nos.9, 33, 47, 48, 77, 78, 102 and 103, it would prima facie hold that there was no illegality even in the selection of private respondents barring respondent no.104 whose appointment has already been cancelled by the State Government. It would, therefore, still be open to the appellants-writ petitioners to point out as with regard to the forgery/illegality in the certificate of those eight persons named by them in their reply to the counter affidavit and if it is found by the respondents that their training certificate was forged/inadmissible as per the terms of advertisement, suitable orders would be passed by the official respondents after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the aforementioned respondent nos.9, 33, 47, 48, 77, 78, 102 and 103. 25. The other part of the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that there was no proper selection because of not holding a technical test of all the candidates would amount to questioning the norms of selection by unsuccessful candidates. It is well settled by now that a candidate having appeared in the selection test and taking chance for getting selection after being declared unsuccessful cannot question the norms of selection. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. ,, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 wherein the Apex Court had held as follows:- 9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, 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 the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, 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 the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three 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 petitioner. 26. In fact learned single Judge has also gone into this aspect and has rightly held ;- The process of selection though initiated by the Health Department was subsequently under the control of the Commission and there is no material on record to show that such selection process is violative of any provisions of law and rules. The plea that some better particulars were required to be given in the advertisement, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner when they chose not to challenge the same and took their chance even till the viva voce examination after they had passed the written examination. The plea that some technical test should have been conducted, as has been done in the case of stenographers and typists, by treating the post of T. B. Assistant as technical in nature, does not have any merit. 27. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar ors. vs. Shakti Raj and Ors. , reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 is wholly misplaced inasmuch as in that case there were statutory rules with regard to appointment on the post of canal patwari in the Irrigation Department of State of Hariyana as noticed by the Apex Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment. vs. Shakti Raj and Ors. , reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 is wholly misplaced inasmuch as in that case there were statutory rules with regard to appointment on the post of canal patwari in the Irrigation Department of State of Hariyana as noticed by the Apex Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment. Thus, what ever has been recorded in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, heavily relied by learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the findings already arrived at in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) that the statutory rules for appointment were not followed in course of selection and appointment. In the present case, there is no dispute that there is no statutory rule or a circular prescribing specific mode of selection for the post of Tuberculosis Assistant and this being a class III posts has to be filled by following norms of general selection and appointment prevalent in the State Government. Thus the distinction made by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as with regard to ratio of Madan Lal (supra) has to be understood only in that context. 28. Moreover, it has to be always remembered that in the case of appellants-writ petitioners while seeking selection and appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant in terms of advertisement it was not a case of recruitment from the open market rather such selection test was confined exclusively for the Tuberculosis Assistant who had already been appointed and had worked on the said post for a number of years and that is how the Apex Court had also directed for giving weightage for the experience by awarding additional marks for such category of selection and appointment, better known in service jurisprudence as internal recruitment. When the Supreme Court itself had evolved a methodology without prescribing for specialized test and there was also no statutory rules prescribing such norms of selection, the consequential selection and appointment in terms of order of the Supreme Court cannot be faulted only because a selection test for judging matriculates with knowledge in tuberculosis was not undergone. When the Supreme Court itself had evolved a methodology without prescribing for specialized test and there was also no statutory rules prescribing such norms of selection, the consequential selection and appointment in terms of order of the Supreme Court cannot be faulted only because a selection test for judging matriculates with knowledge in tuberculosis was not undergone. It has to be always remembered that the procedure of inhouse selection for the purpose of appointment by way of regularizing of the services, as was sought to be done in the case of the appellants-writ petitioners and others, being illegal appointees of Dr. A. A. Mallick, a uniform norm of selection was undertaken wherein after holding the written test, 415 candidates were called for interview as against 125 posts and the recommendation was made by the Commission on the basis of merit list prepared as per the total marks secured in the written test and interview. The Apex Court has resorted to such norms at a number of occasions including even in case there was statutory rules prescribing written test followed by interview. Thus, in the case of doctors appointed under Central Health Services when a large number of appointments were made on ad hoc basis without following the norms of recommendations by the Union Public Service Commission, a similar method of selection only through interview was evolved as can be found from the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dr. P. P. C. Rawani and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (C. A. No.3519 of 1984, disposed of on 9/4/1987) regarding which the Apex Court subsequently had again issued directions for giving them the benefit of their past services on 29/10/1991 in case of Dr. P. P. C. Rawani and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. , reported in (1992) 1 SCC 331 . Thus, to conclude this aspect it must be said that whatever norms was fixed by the Apex Court for such selection and appointment on all the posts of health services including the posts of Tuberculosis Assistant was strictly followed by the Commission and the State Government at least while making appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant. Thus, to conclude this aspect it must be said that whatever norms was fixed by the Apex Court for such selection and appointment on all the posts of health services including the posts of Tuberculosis Assistant was strictly followed by the Commission and the State Government at least while making appointment on the post of Tuberculosis Assistant. This, being a special provision made only for the earlier appointees whose services were terminated the norms of selection through a written test and interview which was conducted in a uniform manner for all the candidates, the unsuccessful appellants-writ petitioners cannot be allowed to make a grievance as with regard to constitution of selection committee or norms of selection. 29. Thus, having given our anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, we are of the considered view that there is no flaw either in selection and appointment of respondent no.6 to 103 (services of respondent no.104 have already been terminated) or in the denial of appointment to the appellants-writ petitioners who had admittedly ranked below respondent no.6 to 103. 30. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs.