Judgment 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the result of the written examination held in the year 1998-1999, and consequently direct the respondent to adopt universally accepted method of scaling down / moderation, in the main written examination, thereby publish fresh result, thus, render justice. 2. The petitioner participated in the main written examination in the year December 1999, of Group-I Services for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police etc., conducted by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. The submission of the petitioner is that as per the scheme framed by the TNPSC for Group-I Services recruitment process, is as under; i) first, preliminary examinations then main written examination and oral test (Interview) 3. The preliminary examination is for screening the candidates interested to appear in the main examination. The ratio fixed for main examination is 1:10. 4. In the main written examination, 28 optional subjects were prescribed by TNPSC in syllabus. From the optional subject, candidate had to select any two optional subject, one compulsory language paper and two compulsory common general knowledge papers. The number of candidates shortlisted for oral test are in the ratio of 1:3. 5. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination on 06.06.1999, in which, 460 candidates were selected for main written examination on the basis of rule of reservation of appointment. 6. The submission of petition is that as per the rule prescribed by the TNPSC for the main written examination, the candidate was to choose two optional subjects, one compulsory language paper, and two compulsory common general knowledge papers. 7. The petitioner appeared in the examination and according to him, he did well, and he was hoping to be selected for oral test / interview. The petitioner was not selected. The submission of petitioner is that most of the candidates, who were selected, had chosen pure science as optional subject. Whereas the candidates who had selected arts did not come in merit for interview. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the whole process of selection. 8. The petitioner has not impleaded, the selected candidates as party, who, on selection, stood appointed. The writ petition prima facie is not competent, as it suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary parties. 9. Whereas the candidates who had selected arts did not come in merit for interview. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the whole process of selection. 8. The petitioner has not impleaded, the selected candidates as party, who, on selection, stood appointed. The writ petition prima facie is not competent, as it suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary parties. 9. The writ petition is otherwise also not maintainable, as the petitioner cannot challenge the procedure of examination, after having taken chance of being selected, and having failed to come in merit, as per principle of estoppel. This Court does not decide the case only for academic purpose, where petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. The writ petition is otherwise also not to be considered for academic purpose, as it is not disputed that since the year 2001, the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission started following the principle of scaling, as demanded. 11. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.