Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Technical Assistant, for which direct recruitments were made during the year 2009 in respect of 1,100 posts. The petitioner participated in the oral interview. He belonged to M.B.C/DC Category. The petitioner secured 88.25 marks, out of which for his qualification, 75.01 mark was given. For interview, 2 mark was given. The total secured mark is 77.01. In respect of MBC Category, the cut off mark is 80.34. The petitioner was not selected. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to consider his case for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant based on his merit, seniority and experience. 3. Notice was ordered on this Writ Petition. Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board produced a list of marks given to the petitioner including the cut-off mark. A counter affidavit dated 18.2.2010 was also filed, reiterating the same contention. 4. The petitioner was not satisfied with the award of marks. He also stated by showing the list of selectees published in the website that the candidates, who secured lesser mark for qualification were given higher marks in respect of the oral interview in respect of M.B.C.Candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out serial numbers 134, 135 and 136 and several other serial numbers, and contended that because of the award of interview mark of 14, they were able to come within the cut-off mark. Whereas the petitioner, who had a qualification mark of 75.01 by further award of 2 mark in the interview was made to lose. Therefore, the interview mark was used as a lever to push up the candidates, who are having lesser academic qualification than the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that he being trained apprentice by the Board is entitled to preference and the conducting of the selection itself was not valid. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner later on argued that subsequent to the publication of the result, the cut off marks were lowered and some other candidates have been admitted, she is not able to secure any information and such information is also not coming by way of any pleadings. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner later on argued that subsequent to the publication of the result, the cut off marks were lowered and some other candidates have been admitted, she is not able to secure any information and such information is also not coming by way of any pleadings. Therefore, on the basis of admitted facts, it has to be seen, whether, in the conducting of the oral test for 15 marks, which operates as a lever to the promoted candidates, the Court in the exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the award of such marks. The further argument is that out of 15 marks, the marks must be given on the basis of subdivision so that there will be less arbitrariness. In the present case, the marks are not subdivided under various heads. Therefore, there is scope for arbitrariness. 6. In the present case, it has to be seen that the petitioner having participated in the selection process on the basis of notified prospectus, cannot turn back and challenge the very system. Unless the selection is so arbitrary and not hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court cannot interfere with the same. 7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: 26. Yet another aspect of the matter: That the appellant had participated in the similar selection process for erstwhile grade 15 and 16, Manager (Maintenance/Systems) and Senior Manager (Maintenance/Systems) respectively. The Corporation had given adequate opportunity to the appellant to compete with all other eligible candidates at the selection for consideration of the case of all eligible candidates to the post in question. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles and of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion. In Madan Lal and Ors. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles and of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion. In Madan Lal and Ors. v. (1995) 1 SCR 908, this Court observed: "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: Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful." Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. (2002) 3 SCR 948." 8. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. However, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that injustice is being done to her client. Therefore, the interview process is tainted and should be set aside. 9. Considering the said submission, it has to be seen whether the said submissions merits acceptance. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, (1986) 1 SCC 671 , after referring to the earlier judgment in paragraph 3 held as follows: "3. We do not think that the Interviewing Board, in the present case, was under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under various sub-heads. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs." 10. Subsequently in the judgment of State of Maharashtra v. Husen reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 468, the Supreme Court after referring to Ajay Hasias case upheld the method of conducting interview and in paragraph 9, it had observed as follows: 9. We do not consider it necessary to refer to a long line of cases which have laid down that no hard and fast rule in this behalf can be laid down as to the weight to be given to the performance of a candidate at the interview. We do not consider it necessary to refer to a long line of cases which have laid down that no hard and fast rule in this behalf can be laid down as to the weight to be given to the performance of a candidate at the interview. We, however, cannot agree with the High Court when it says that compulsory minimum passing marks for a viva voce test cannot be permissible in law. The High Court overlooked the fact that the viva voce test has relevance in regard to the factors other than those which are taken care of by the written test. Much would depend on the nature of service but it cannot be said that prescription of minimum marks for passing the viva voce test would always be constitutionally unsustainable. The performance of a candidate besides his knowledge in the academic field etc. also has relevance depending on the nature of the service or the duties and functions that he would be required to discharge from time to time. Take for example a service where it becomes necessary to test the reaction of the candidate in his dealings with the public. Next, whether he maintains his calm in panic situations or reacts sharply without weighing the situation confronting him. In such a service it is not enough that he has fairly good knowledge regarding the rules, the law and administrative requirements but it is equally important to see how he reacts in certain situations. We do not propose to multiply illustrations but it is sufficient to say that the viva voce test is as important as a written test and prescription of minimum pass marks will not per se make a rule unconstitutional. His performance both at the written test and the oral test would give the selector an integrated idea of the candidates personality. This Court had an occasion to consider more or less a similar point in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab4, Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil5 and Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Capt. K.C. Shukla6 wherein also this Court pointed out that no hard and fast rule could be laid down as to the percentage of minimum marks to be prescribed for clearing the viva voce test because much would depend on the diverse factors which must enter consideration for evaluating the candidate’s worth. v. Capt. K.C. Shukla6 wherein also this Court pointed out that no hard and fast rule could be laid down as to the percentage of minimum marks to be prescribed for clearing the viva voce test because much would depend on the diverse factors which must enter consideration for evaluating the candidate’s worth. In Mohinder Sain case4 this Court pointed out in paragraph 30 at page 680 as under. “In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana7 it was held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter determined by experts. The court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the court to pronounce upon it ....” 11. Once again, the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 held that the candidates, who have taken oral test cannot challenge on the basis that the interview itself was unfair. The following passage found in paragraph 9 may be usefully extracted: "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. 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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 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." 12. In the light of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.