JUDGMENT 1. - Having faced the selection process, having been denied the appointment to the post of Rural Nursing Grade II, the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have approached this court. Since all these writ petitions challenge the merit list dated 8-8-2009, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18-7-2008, the Director, Medical & Health Services issued an advertisement for the post of Rural Nursing Grade II. According to the advertisement there were 1757 posts. Moreover, according to the advertisement, the selection was to be made on the basis of merit/interview. The selections were to be made in accordance with Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Services Rules, 2008 (for short `Rules, 2008'). Since the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification, they applied for the said post. The petitioners were called for interview, which were conducted from 3-7-2009 to 2-8-2009. On 8-8-2009, the merit list was published. However, the petitioners were shocked to learn that they have not been selected for the said post. Hence, they rushed to this court. 3. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General, has raised two preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions. Firstly, that since the petitioners have undergone the selection process, without any protest and without challenging the same, they are now precluded from challenging the selection process. According to Mr. Yadav, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once a candidate undergoes the selection process, he cannot challenge it, as he has acquiesced to the selection process and waived his right. In order to buttress his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 ; Dhananjaya Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 ; Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 ; Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 ; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh K. Shukla, (1986) Supp. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 ; Dhananjaya Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 ; Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 ; Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 ; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh K. Shukla, (1986) Supp. SCC 285 ; Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 ; Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; Sadananda Halo v. Mumtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 ; H.K. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Finance Corporation, (2008) 7 SCC 639 ; Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 ; Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 11 SCC 724 ; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 ; Vijay Sagal & Another v. State of Punjab & Others, (2003) 9 SCC 401 ; G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 ; Smt.Yashbala Rathore & 126 others v. State of Rajasthan & others, 2010 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 514 .Secondly, the petitioners have not arrayed those persons, who have been selected and appointed to the post of Rural Nursing Grade-II, as party respondent. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. After all, this Court cannot pass an order which may adversely affect the interest of those candidates who have been selected and appointed on the posts. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Ishwar Singh & Others v. Kuldeep Singh & Others, (1995) Supp.(1) SCC 179 ; Avtar Singh v. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 487 ; Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251 ; Arun Tiwari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, (1998) 2 SCC 332 ; and U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Others v. Daya Ram Saroj & Others, (2007) 2 SCC 138 . 4. Mr. Tanveer Ahmad and other learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the appointment cannot be made solely on the basis of interview. In order to buttress this argument, the learned counsel have relied upon Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 , and St. Stephen's College v. The University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630 . According to the petitioners, for 1757 vacancies, all the applicants were invited for interview. In order to buttress this argument, the learned counsel have relied upon Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 , and St. Stephen's College v. The University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630 . According to the petitioners, for 1757 vacancies, all the applicants were invited for interview. Every day about 700 candidates were interviewed. Thus, the interview could not have lasted for more than a minute or two. Hence, the entire interview process was more illusionary than substantive in nature. The petitioners could challenge the selection only after having undergone the process, and not before hand. Secondly, as there are glaring mistakes made in the merit list, for example, the cut of point is no where indicated in the merit list, marks obtained by each candidate is not indicated in the said list, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe have not been selected, therefore, the selection process could be challenged only after it has been completed. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. Yadav has argued that in the advertisement dated 18-7-2008, it was clearly stated that the selection would be made solely on the basis of interview. In case the petitioners were aggrieved by the said stand of the respondents, they were free to challenge the said advertisement prior to holding of the interview. Knowing fully well that the selection would be made only on the basis of interview, the petitioners decided to participate in the said process. Once they have undergone the interview, they cannot challenge the interview process, or the merit list. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and considered the case law cited at the Bar. 7. A similar preliminary objection was raised in the case of Yashbala Rathore & 126 others v. State of Rajasthan (supra). Like the present case, the case of Smt. Yashbala Rathore dealt with the selection to the post of Female Health Worker. The said selection was also made under the Rules of 2008. The petitioners in that case also applied under the advertisement dated 18-7-2008. A coordinate bench of this Court held that once the petitioners had participated in the selection process, they were estopped from challenging the selection process. The said selection was also made under the Rules of 2008. The petitioners in that case also applied under the advertisement dated 18-7-2008. A coordinate bench of this Court held that once the petitioners had participated in the selection process, they were estopped from challenging the selection process. Similarly in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) the Apex Court had observed that if a candidate had a chance to appear in the interview, the result of interview is not appealable. He cannot turn around subsequently and contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection was not properly conducted. Therefore, the petitioners, who have undergone the interview cannot be permitted to challenge the interview process. Thus, this court also accepts the first preliminary objection, raised by Mr. Yadav, and holds that since the petitioners have admittedly faced the interview and have undergone through the selection process, they cannot possibly turn around and challenge the selection process. Thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 8. It would not only be a travesty of principles of natural justice, but would also be a desecration of justice if a judgment is passed behind the back of the candidates who have been selected and appointed. In order to protect and promote the principles of natural justice and the Rule of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that in case necessary parties are not arrayed as a party respondent to a writ petition, then the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In the case of Daya Ram Saroj & others (supra), the Apex Court had held that no adverse order can be passed without bringing on record the affected party. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to array those persons who have been selected as party respondent. Therefore, the second preliminary objection of Mr.Yadav deserves acceptance. 9. Hence, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is unacceptable. 10. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the preliminary objections raised by Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General are worthy of acceptance. Since the preliminary objections are being accepted, there is no necessity to enter into the merits of the case. 11. The writ petitions are, hereby, dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.Petition Dismissed. *******