1. Petitioners 1,2 and 4 were engaged as Field-cum-Laboratory Assistants (in short FCLA), on adhoc basis. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, he was engaged as Computer Assistant. The said arrangement was initially for a period of 89 days and, later on extended from time to time with one days' break on the expiry of the said period. The dates on which the said petitioners were so engaged, have been reflected in the writ petition. The initial engagement of the petitioner No. 1 has been shown as 19.11.2004, petitioner no.2 as 04.12.206, petitioner no.3 as 20.07.2007 and that of petitioner no.4 as 03.10.2007. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that vide notification No.01(Est.) of 2008 dated 15.02.2008, applications were invited by the official respondents for filling up different posts including the posts of FCLAs and Computer Assistant. Petitioners 1,2 and 4, in response to the said notification applied for the post of FCLAs and petitioner no.3 applied for the post of Computer Assistant, as they had the experience of working against the said posts even though on adhoc basis. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of FCLA was 10+2 Science group with 50% marks and preference was to be given to those having one year's training from a recognized institute of Agriculture/Horticulture and allied fields or B.Sc. So far as the post of Computer Assistant is concerned, the minimum qualification prescribed was Graduate with one year's diploma course from a recognized Institute or B.Sc. (Computer Science) or its equivalent. Interview was conducted by the official respondents but later on vide notification no.06 (EST) of 2008 dated 16.12.2008, it was notified that interview conducted in pursuance to the earlier notification dated 15.02.2008, would be deemed to have been cancelled. Applications for filling up different posts were invited afresh. However, those candidates who had already applied in pursuance to the earlier notification were required not to apply afresh. The petitioners 1 to 4 having already applied in pursuance to the notification dated 15.02.2008, did not respond to the fresh notification as their candidature was to be considered on the basis of applications already submitted by them. Only petitioner no.5 who had not applied earlier submitted his application in response to the second notification. The petitioners 1 to 4 having already applied in pursuance to the notification dated 15.02.2008, did not respond to the fresh notification as their candidature was to be considered on the basis of applications already submitted by them. Only petitioner no.5 who had not applied earlier submitted his application in response to the second notification. The selection process was initiated by the official respon­dents and ultimately a select list of FCLAs in the open category came to be issued on 11.03.2010, in which the petitioners name did not figure. Having remained unsuccessful, the petitioners have challenged their non-selection against the afore­mentioned post in the present petition. 3. The petitioners have challenged their non selection on different grounds as taken in the writ petition. It is urged that the post of FCLA falls in Chapter III Class III, Category 1. Statute 15 under Chapter III deals with the recruitment of employees other than the officers and teachers of the University. In terms of part (b) (i) of Statute 15, the applications received in response to the advertisement notification are to be screened in the office of the University and the Vice Chancellor who is the final authority to select the candidates after screening for the purpose of inviting them for interview. Instead, all the applicants were invited to go through a written test for screening which is not provided in the Statute and those who qualified the said test were called for interview. 4. Further contention raised is that no criterion of selection was disclosed by the official respondents. It was also not disclosed that the written test for screening carried any weightage nor the same is provided by the University Statute. The criteria so adopted by the University authorities in making the selection was only disclosed after directions were issued by this court in writ petition SWP No. 1 131/2010, earlier filed by the petitioners. In terms of the criteria disclosed by the official respondents, 30 points were kept for screening test, which as per the petitioners, as indicate above, is not provided by the Statute, 25 points for academic qualification, 5 points for one year training, 5 points for those having the qualifica­tion of Graduate in Science/Agriculture and allied fields, 5 points for experience and 30 points for interview. 5. 5. On the basis of the above criteria adopted by the respondent-University, it is contended that excessive percentage of marks was kept for screening test and interview, which according to the petitioners is not in accordance with the law. It is stated that 36 points kept by the official respondents for interview comes out to be 32% of the total marks as there were only 95 marks in all, which is too high a percentage for the post of FCLA. Accordingly to the petitioners, once the written test was conducted for the purpose of screening, then there was no question of allocating 30 points for screening as only those candidates would appear in the interview who were able to qualify the written test. As per the petitioners, the written test for screening cannot be made a part of the main examination, as no such criteria is discernible from the University Statute dealing with the subject. 6. In addition to the above contentions raised, the petitioners have also alleged malafide against the respondent authorities by stating that all the petitioners except petitioner no.5 had cleared the screening test and appeared in the interview but somehow or other by giving them lesser points either in the screening test or in interview, the petitioners were downgraded in the overall merit position. It is under these circumstances, direction is sought for quashing the impugned select list and considering the petitioners for appointment against the aforementioned post. 7. Official respondents in their objections have pleaded that the selection of private respondents 8 to 22 has been done purely on the basis of the higher merit obtained by them in the selection process. While making the selection, the perfor­mance of the candidates has been assessed on the basis of screening test, academic qualification, experience and interview. The private respondents were found to be more meritorious than the petitioners and thus, have been selected. While making the selection, the perfor­mance of the candidates has been assessed on the basis of screening test, academic qualification, experience and interview. The private respondents were found to be more meritorious than the petitioners and thus, have been selected. It is stated that it was specifically provided in the advertisement notice that the candidates with Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture/Animal Husbandry/Home Science/Agriculture Engineering and other professional field or Master's Degree in a specialized subject shall also be eligible for the post of FCLA/LSA and if selected, shall have to undergo apprenticeship at various farms/laboratories of the University for a period of one to two years and the candidates who have already undergone one year's training in the above fields in a recognized institute or have B.Sc. degree shall undergo apprentice for a period of one year only. It is stated that the petitioners being well aware of the criteria laid down for the selection and having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same on remaining unsuc­cessful. 8. It has been further pleaded that the respondent University had received 1277 applications for the post of FCLA. The Screening Committee undertook the screen­ing process as per the Statute and made 1098 candidates eligible for the said post. As it was difficult for the respondent authorities to conduct the interview of all these candidates, mechanism of short listing was adopted in which the name of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 also figured. However, after over all assessment made by the authorities regarding performance of all the candidates, the said petitioners did not make the grade, and thus, were not selected. No candidate has been given any undue weightage as alleged by the petitioners. It is, thus, contended that no fault can be found with the process of selection conducted by the respondent University and ultimate selection of the private respondents. 9. Private respondents have also filed objections resisting the petition on the ground that the petitioners having competed in the selection process along with others have no locus to challenge the selection of private respondents who were found more meritorious than the petitioners in the said selection process. 9. Private respondents have also filed objections resisting the petition on the ground that the petitioners having competed in the selection process along with others have no locus to challenge the selection of private respondents who were found more meritorious than the petitioners in the said selection process. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments of the apex court reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Dhananjay Malik and others v. State Uttaranchal and others, and (2009) 3 SCC 227 , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and others. Even the short listing criteria in the method of selection to a public post, as has been adopted by the official respondents, is said to have been upheld by the apex court in number of judgments. One such judgment on reliance has been placed is reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 119, Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of West Bengal and others. It is further stated that there was no arbitrariness on the part of the members of the Selection Committee as no favoritism has been shown to any of the selected candidates. It is, accordingly, submitted by the private respondents that their selection against the aforementioned post is the outcome of a fair and rightful action on the part of the official respondents and the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the same. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admitted. Following grievances have been raised in this writ petition. (i) That while making selection, marks obtained in the screening test could not have been made part of the criteria for making selection as it was only intended for short-listing of the candidates and was in the nature of the preliminary test; (ii) That excessive percentage of marks have been kept for the interview and screening test; and (iii) That the screening has been done in violation of the University statute. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners have with their open eyes participated in the selection process in pursuance to the notification issued in the year 2009, which clearly indicated criteria for making the said selection. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners have with their open eyes participated in the selection process in pursuance to the notification issued in the year 2009, which clearly indicated criteria for making the said selection. The merit list which was required to be prepared on the basis of the composite marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, even though, it was provided only for short-listing in the said interview. The screening has been done strictly in accordance with the University statute. 11. While analyzing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it be seen that in pursuance to the notification issued by respondents on 16.12.2008, the applications were invited for making selection to the post of Field-cum-Laboratory Assistants and those who have already applied vide earlier notifi­cation need not to apply. The petitioners at para no. 20 of the writ petition have stated that notification dated 16.12.2008 prescribes the mode of selection on the basis of competitive test/interview. It seems that the University vide its notification dated 10.09.2009 while taking recourse to the Statute- 15, provided criteria for making such appointments. The criterion disclosed is as under:- 06 Field-cum-Laboratory 10+2 Science group Screening Test=30 Assistant with 50% marks points (paper of 100 (relaxable to 40% in marks with 30% respect of reserved weight age) categories) preferably Qualification: with one year training 10+2=25 points (% age from a recognized marks obtained Institute of X25/100) Agriculture/Horticul 1 year training from a ture and allied fields or recognized Institute of B.Sc. Agriculture/Horticul ture & allied fields =05 points. Graduate in Science/Agriculture & allied fields= 05 points (%age marks obtained X05/100). Experience 05 points (1 marks per year maximum 05 years) Interview 30 points. Total= 100. 12. It is only after disclosure of this criterion, the competitive examination for conducting screening test was held. The petitioners along with other candidates were called for interview for the posts in question. The petitioners 1 to 4 qualified the written test and were called for interview along with other eligible candidates. 13. It transpires from the aforementioned facts that the petitioners have partic­ipated in the selection process being fully aware of the criteria for making such selection and it is this process which is sought to be questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition. 13. It transpires from the aforementioned facts that the petitioners have partic­ipated in the selection process being fully aware of the criteria for making such selection and it is this process which is sought to be questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted that the criteria for making selection was not disclosed. As a matter of fact vide communi­cation dated 10.09.2009 criteria was disclosed and process of selection was initiated only after disclosing the same while calling the persons for the written examination and interview. 14. The petitioners have participated in the selection process by qualifying the written examination and appearing in the interview. After having duly participated in the selection process they cannot turn around to question the criteria. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and others reported in 2007(8) SCC100 wherein their lordships have held as under :- "A. Service law - Recruitment -Cut-off marks-Held, competent au throaty has power to fix cut off marks- Competent authority also has power not to lower them in the interest of general merit, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled-Such a decision cannot be termed arbitrary- A candidate has no vested right to claim appointment to a post. B. Service Law-Recruitment- Estoppel- Held, 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. The appellant Railways, while making recruitment for the post of "Gang-man" fixed cut-off marks separately for general category and reserved category candidates (para 3 of the judgment). However, some of the vacan­cies remained unfilled because the Railways could not get requisite number of candidates within the cut-off marks. The competent authority took a specific decision not to lower the cut-off marks because it was not consid­ered to be conducive to general merit of candidates. The question was whether this decision was arbitrary in view of the fact that some of the vacancies remained unfilled. Held: The fact that the Railway Administration intended to fix the cut-off mark for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in respect of the general category as also reserved category candidates is evident from the fact that different cut-off marks were fixed for different categories of Candidates. Held: The fact that the Railway Administration intended to fix the cut-off mark for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in respect of the general category as also reserved category candidates is evident from the fact that different cut-off marks were fixed for different categories of Candidates. 11 is therefore not possible to accept the submission that the cut-off marks fixed was wholly arbitrary so as to offend the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The power of the employer to fix the cut-off marks is neither denied nor disputed. If the cut-off marks were fixed on a rational basis, no exception thereto can be taken. Once it is held that the appellants had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it could not be directed to lower the same. It is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks. The Court while exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdiction of the court, in this behalf is limited. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candi­dates. Even assuming that the appellants should have filled up the unfilled vacancies meant for the reserved category candidates by the general can­didates, but then for the said purpose, the general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut-off marks fixed there for. The respondents admittedly did not do so. The High Court committed a serious error in directing the appellant to lower the cut-off marks. It is now a principle of law that even wait-listed candidates have no legal right to be appointed. It was for the appellant to decide as to whether the posts were to be deserved or carried forward. The respondents appeared in a competitive examination. The post advertised were public posts. They did not have any vested right for appointment. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully were the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same" 15. The respondents appeared in a competitive examination. The post advertised were public posts. They did not have any vested right for appointment. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully were the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same" 15. The second question that requires consideration is as to whether the marks obtained in the written examination even though conducted for the purpose of short-listing could be counted while making selection for the said posts. 16. It is not in dispute that the State is bound to devise some procedure to short list the candidates considering its limited resources to restrict number of candidates from appearing in the interview. Short-listing process is adopted only for the purpose of cutting down the zone of consideration to minimum and allowing only those candidates who have been qualified to be considered for such selection. 17. After having said so, the next question that requires for consideration is as to whether official respondents were right in preparing the list on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination even though conducted only for the purpose of screening and oral test. Undisputedly preliminary examination is not part of the main examination. However, it be seen that the petitioners in no case were effected by such procedure. Law provides only right of consideration, which has been provided to them. Their right has not been taken away by the respondents in this behalf. 18. The petitioners along with other persons appeared in the preliminary examination and the petitioners 1 to 4 qualified the written examination and called for interview along with other candidates. The petitioner no.5 did not qualify the written examination, as such, he can have no grievance in this behalf. I fortify my view with the findings recorded by the Apex Court judgment in Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti reported in SCC P.278 52) wherein it is held as under:- "52. The authority of the State to frame rules is not in question. The purport and object for which the said notifications were issued also cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The authority of the State to frame rules is not in question. The purport and object for which the said notifications were issued also cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants herein no doubt had a right to be considered but their right to be considered along with other candidates had not been taken away. Both the groups appeared in the preliminary exami­nation. Those who had succeeded in the preliminary examination were, however, allowed to sit in the main examination and the candidature of those had been taken into consideration for the purpose of viva voce test who had passed the written examination." Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Court reported in 2009 (2) SCC (L&S) 119 titled Tridip Kumar Dingal and others, v. State of West Bengal and others, wherein it is held as under:- "39. It has also come on record that the administrative decision had been taken by the State to take "elimination test" to "shortlist" huge number of candidates. It is further clear that the plea to that effect was raised by the State in the first round of litigation before the first authority viz. the Tribunal itself. But, in view of the fact that in that round of litigation, the tribunal held the action of the State authorities to be wrong and the High Court upheld it and the State did not challenge the order in this Court, in our opinion, the High Court in the second round, did not commit any error of law in directing the authorities to prepare merit list on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in written examination as also in oral interview. It was not open to the State authorities to reiterate and re-agitate in the second round, the same ground, that written examination was in the nature of "elimination test" and it was limited to "short-listing" of candidates and marks obtained by candidates at the written examination could not be considered for preparation of merit list. The said state had already gone and the decision in the first round had attained finality so far as the nature of written examination was concerned. The said state had already gone and the decision in the first round had attained finality so far as the nature of written examination was concerned. The Tribunal and the High Court were, therefore, right in holding in the second round that the merit list was required to be prepared on the basis of composite marks obtained by candidates at the written examination and oral interview and not only on the basis of marks at the oral interview." 19. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly emerges that such a criteria could be adopted by respondents in making selection. 20. Accordingly, I hold that no error has been committed by the respondents in making selection. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioners were called for inter­view and they accepted this criteria before appearing in the said interview. There­fore, their right has not been taken away by the respondents in this behalf. 21. Viewed thus, I find no force in this petition. The same is, accordingly dismissed along with connected CMP(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.