JUDGMENT Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge: By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the appointment of private respondents No.3 to 15 to the post of Assistant District Attorneys in the department of Prosecution on the sole ground that no such appointment could have been made merely on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in personal interview and without adding the marks obtained in screening test. 2.The advertisement is Annexure P-1 and thereby the second respondent had advertised 15 posts (Gen-07, Gen. Ex.SM-03, SC Ex.SM -01, ST-02 and OBC-02) of Assistant District Attorneys. The petitioner had also participated in the process leading to selection to the posts in question from OBC category. 3.The ‘Himachal Pradesh, Prosecution Department, Assistant District Attorney, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules , 2009’ are Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. As per these Rules, the mode of recruitment to the post in question is direct and the minimum Education and other qualification required for such recruitment are prescribed under Rule 7, which reads as under:- “7 Minimum education and other qualificationsrequired fordirectrecruitment Essential Qualification(s):-i) Professional degree in Law from a recognized University or its equivalent; andii)Atleast two years experience as an advocate. The candidate is required to produce experience certificate duly signed by the President, District BarAssociation concerned/ Bar CouncilDesirable Qualification(s):- Knowledge of customs, manners dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh.” 4.The 2nd respondent is the Agency to make recruitment to the post in question as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules ibid, which reads as under:- “15 Selectionfor appointment to the post by direct recruitment; Selection for appointment to the post in the case of direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of viva-voce test if Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other recruiting authority as the case may be, so consider necessary or expedient by a written test or practical test, the standard/syllabus, etc. of which, will be determined by the Commission OR other recruiting authority as the case may be. 5.At this juncture, it will also be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions contained in the Rules of business of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2007 Annexure R-2/1 to the reply filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. of which, will be determined by the Commission OR other recruiting authority as the case may be. 5.At this juncture, it will also be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions contained in the Rules of business of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, 2007 Annexure R-2/1 to the reply filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 6.Rule 8(ii) and (v) of the Rules of Business of the Commission, relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the point in issue in this writ petition reads as under:- “ii) SCREENING TEST:In cases where the number of eligible candidates for the post(s) advertised by the commission is inordinately large, the Commission may restrict the candidates to be called for interview by subjecting all the eligible candidates to a screening test. The screening test may be of two hours duration and ten minutes time may be allowed to the candidates for entering into the examination hall. The result of the screening test as far as possible be declared within one month or early depending upon the circumstances and number of candidates after the test is over. Normally 6 candidates are declared qualified for a single post and three candidates for every subsequent post. But in case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates it should depend upon the number of candidates. If the number of candidates is fewer in the particular category, all of them will be called for interview. Minimum pass marks in interview are 45 for general category and 35 for reserved category.XxxxxXxxxxv)Where selection is made by the interview of candidates qualified in the screening test, the candidates scoring more marks in the interview shall be placed above the candidates scoring less marks in the interview. If candidate score equal marks in interview, then the candidate securing more marks in screening test will be placed above the candidate securing less marks in the screening gets. In case the marks of screening test are equal then the candidate who is senior in age will be placed above the candidate junior in age. The marks obtained in the Screening test are not added. The purpose of screening test is only to short list the number of candidates. It is also submitted that no waiting list is prepared/maintained by the replying respondent on the basis of interview(s) conducted by it for various categories of posts. The marks obtained in the Screening test are not added. The purpose of screening test is only to short list the number of candidates. It is also submitted that no waiting list is prepared/maintained by the replying respondent on the basis of interview(s) conducted by it for various categories of posts. 7.Pursuant to the advertisement Annexure P-1, 945 applications were received by the 2nd respondent for the post in question. On scrutiny of such applications, 931 candidates including the petitioner in this writ petition were provisionally admitted to undergo the screening test, which was scheduled to be held in the exercise of powers vested in the 2nd respondent under Rule 8(ii) supra of the Rules of Business on 4.4.2010. 8.Out of 931 provisionally admitted candidates, only 562 had turned up to appear in the Screening Test. The statement of marks obtained by each candidate in the screening test is Annexure P-2. The 2nd respondent had interviewed 51 candidates, who were in merit, as per the merit list drawn on the basis of the marks obtained by such candidates in the screening test. Keeping in view the number of vacancies meant for various categories and on the basis of their performance in the interview marks were awarded to them as shown against each of such candidates in Annexure P-3. In the OBC category to which the petitioner belongs, 9 candidates had qualified the screening test and they all were called to appear in the personal interview. The name of the petitioner who had been allocated roll number 540, figures at Sl. No.47 of Annexure P-3 and he had secured 45 marks in the personal interview. 9.Since the other qualified candidates had secured more marks as compared to the petitioner in the interview, therefore, were recommended to be appointed as Additional District Attorneys against the posts meant for OBC category. The petitioner although had participated in the selection process, yet being an unsuccessful candidate has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondents No.3 to 15 on the sole ground as already discussed at the very outset in this judgment. The petitioner although had participated in the selection process, yet being an unsuccessful candidate has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondents No.3 to 15 on the sole ground as already discussed at the very outset in this judgment. 10.Learned counsel on both sides have focused their submissions qua two aspects of this matter i.e. firstly, that the criteria of selection based on 100% on the marks awarded in the personal interview is legally permissible or not and secondly, that the petitioner who had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process is legally entitled to assail the appointment of the private respondents or not. 11.The answer to the above poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in affirmative because by now it is well settled that the selection of a candidate to a post on the basis of personal interview alone is legally permissible, however, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 12.It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1981 (4) SCC 159 that the written examination assesses the man’s intellect and the interview test the man himself and “the twain shall meet” for a proper selection. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under:- “6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man’s intellect and the interview test the man himself and “the twain shall meet” for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate’s personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1971 SC 2303). Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487) and other cases. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1971 SC 2303). Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487) and other cases. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too great weight, to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service, the minimum nullifications-prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union Public Service Commission.7. In this background, let us now examine the situation presented by the Rajasthan Rules. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The High Court may be expected to know the precise requirements of the judicial service of the State and the calibre of the available source-material, while the Public Service Commission is an expert body, thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies and selection methods. The High Court may be expected to know the precise requirements of the judicial service of the State and the calibre of the available source-material, while the Public Service Commission is an expert body, thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies and selection methods. Both the High Court and the Public Service Commission are independent bodies, outside executive control, occupying special positions and enjoying special status under the Constitution. Neither is an outside agency. Both are well- acquainted with the particular needs of their State and the people. If the Governor, in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating seventy-five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty- five per cent for the interview test, on what basis can a Court say that twenty-five per cent for the interview test is on the high side? It must not also be forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted and was, in the present case, conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court, the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission and a special invitee-expert. There can surely be no legitimate grievance or hint of arbitrariness against this body. Yet another factor worthy of consideration is that the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already received a certain amount of professional training. The source-material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview test and can it possibly be said that twenty- five per cent of the total marks is an exaggerated weightage? We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed before us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the interview Board either before or at the time of the interview. We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed before us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the interview Board either before or at the time of the interview. We are unhesitatingly of the view that the selection for the posts of Munsiff cannot be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test.” 13.It is seen from the ratio of the judgment supra that before the Hon’ble Apex Court it was a case of admission of a student in a College whether the personality of the candidate was yet to develop and it is in this background it was held that in such a case the performance of a candidate in the written examination carry much weight whereas his interview would not be so important. However, in a case of recruitment to a post from amongst the persons of mature personality, the recruitment can safely be based upon interview test subject to other basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied by such person(s). 14.The ratio of this judgment is fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that as per the recruitment and promotion Rules for the post of Assistant District Attorney, the essential qualification is professional degree in law from a recognized University or its equivalent with two years experience as an Advocate. The candidates satisfying such academic and professional qualifications for the post in question can reasonably be believed to be mature persons within the meaning of the ratio of the judgment cited supra and as such the 2nd respondent in its wisdom has not committed any illegality and irregularity by making the provision of personal interview alone for selection of a candidate to the post in question in its Rules of Business referred to hereinabove. 15. 15. Our own High Court in CWP No. 1301 of 2009 titled Ashu Jethi (Phull) versus State of H.P. & Others and its connected petitions decided vide judgment dated 7.1 .2010 while interpreting these very provisions in the Rules of Business of the 2nd respondent and placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including in Lila Dhar’s case cited supra has held as under:- “We have already seen the rule position in this case. It is permissible under the rules to adjudge the suitability of the candidate merely on the basis of viva-voce examination or written examination/practically test to be determined by the Commission. The Commission in its own wisdom has decided to adjudge the suitability merely on the basis of the interview test after holding the screening test as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified in the year 2007. It is always open to the employer or Commission/Selection Board to fill up the posts merely on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview board. However, the method adopted should be transparent and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The holding of interview test alone will also be relevant after taking into consideration the nature of the post in question. In the present case, the candidates have already been screened out and thereafter their suitability has been adjudged by looking into the personality and academic achievements.” 16.No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lila Dhar’s case cited supra, however, failed to persuade this Court to take an opinion contrary to the one taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra and rightly so because the present is not a case of admission to College or University of a candidate whose personality is yet to develop, but the selection of a mature person to the post of Assistant District Attorney. Academic and professional requirement should always be kept in mind by the recruitment agency. This judgment is thus of no help to the case of the petitioner. 17.No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Nagmani Vs. Academic and professional requirement should always be kept in mind by the recruitment agency. This judgment is thus of no help to the case of the petitioner. 17.No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Nagmani Vs. Indian Airlines and other, 2009(5), SCC 515 to substantiate this part of his case, however, their Lordship, while placing reliance on the earlier judgments of the Apex Court including that in the case of Lila Dhar cited supra, in para 52 thereof has held as under:- “52. In the said case, this Court held as under: (K.C. Shukla case, 1993 (1) SCC 17, pate 20, para 3) “3.Law on the proportion between written test and interview or evaluation on confidential entries and personality test have been laid down in a series of decisions by this Court commencing from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan; Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin. Distinction appears to have been drawn in interview held for competitive examinations or admission in educational institutions and selection for higher posts. Effort has been made to eliminate scope of arbitrariness in the former by narrowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But same standard cannot be applied for higher selections. Lila Dhar case brings it out fully. In respondent’s case the personality of the respondent was being judged by a Committee constituted under the rules for purposes of higher promotional posts and, therefore, it was governed by the ratio laid down in Lila Dhar case and it would be unsafe to strike down the rules as arbitrary when the evaluation was job oriented. Marks to be allotted by the Committee were on professional ability and management capacity.” This authoritative pronouncement of this Court, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy raised by the appellant. It is not necessary to dilate any further on the subject.” 18.It is thus seen that the ratio of this judgment is also of no help to the case of the petitioner. 19.Now if coming to the second limb of the arguments addressed on both sides, it is again well settled that an unsuccessful candidate cannot be allowed to turn around and assail the selection process. 19.Now if coming to the second limb of the arguments addressed on both sides, it is again well settled that an unsuccessful candidate cannot be allowed to turn around and assail the selection process. The reliance in this behalf can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2008(4) SCC 171, the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8.In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. This Court further pointed out 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.9.In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.10.In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. This has not been done.10.In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.11.We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single Judge.” 20. Similar view of the matter has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.A. Nagamani’s case cited supra, the relevant portion of this Judgment is reproduced as under :- “53. Yet another aspect of the matter: that the appellant admittedly had participated in the similar selection process for erstwhile Grades 15 and 16, Manager (Maintenance/ Systems) and Senior Manager (Maintenance/Systems) respectively. The Corporation had given adequate opportunity to the appellant to complete with all other eligible candidates at the selection for consideration of the case of all eligible candidates to the post in question.54. The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 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. “ 21.Learned Single Judge of our own High Court in CWP (T) No.8646 of 2008 titled Mahesh Gupta & Another vs. State of H.P. & Others decided on 22.7.2011 has also held that unsuccessful candidate is estopped from challenging the appointment of successful candidate, hence not entitled to file the writ petition. 22.Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Shakti Raj, 1997 (9) SCC, 527. 22.Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Shakti Raj, 1997 (9) SCC, 527. I am afraid, the ratio of the judgment ibid is not at all attracted in the given facts and circumstances and rather distinguishable because in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court irrespective of notification issued in the year 1970 on coming into existence the State of Haryana prescribing thereunder the procedure for selection to the post of Canal Patwaris in the Department of Irrigation by the Subordinate Staff Selection Board, the respondents were found to be making recruitment to the post in question conveniently as per their convenience i.e. sometime under the old ‘Punjab Public Works Department Irrigation Branch Patwaris State services Class-III Rules 1955’, which were applicable to the State of Haryana also and some time under the notification ibid issued in the year 1970 on coming into existence the State of Haryana. In that case, the respondents while dispensing with the requirement under the 1955 Punjab Rules as well as the 1970 notification had constituted a Committee for selection of the candidates in exclusion of the provisions made under the 1970 notification and that too after conducting written examination under 1955 Rules. It is in this background, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment supra as under:- after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1955) 3 SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estopped by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” 23.Thus in view of the ration of the judgment ibid the departure from the well settled legal principle that an unsuccessful candidate has no legal right to challenge the selection made as per the Rules was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case before the Hon’ble Apex Court and so far as such settled legal principles are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the same in this judgment also. 24.As pointed out at the very outset, the selection on the basis of oral interview is legally permissible as per Rule 8(ii) of the Rules of Business of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the recognized agency for making selection to the post of Assistant District Attorney under the 2009 Recruitment and Promotion Rules made for the post in question. The petitioner has not uttered even a single word against the vires of such Rules, therefore, on this score also, he is not at all justified to challenge the action of the 2nd respondent in making selection of the private respondents against the posts of Assistant District Attorneys on the ground that the 100 % criteria of personal interview adopted by the said respondent is not legal and valid. 25.If coming to the factual matrix, it is not the first occasion when the petitioner appeared for the interview conducted by the 2nd respondent for making selection to the post of Assistant District Attorneys because in view of the reply to the writ petition, which remained uncontroverted, he had appeared in interview for the post in question earlier also. 25.If coming to the factual matrix, it is not the first occasion when the petitioner appeared for the interview conducted by the 2nd respondent for making selection to the post of Assistant District Attorneys because in view of the reply to the writ petition, which remained uncontroverted, he had appeared in interview for the post in question earlier also. Therefore, had he been aggrieved and dissatisfied in any manner from the criteria so adopted by the 2nd respondent for making selection he would have assailed the same at the very threshold i.e. well before his appearance in the interview in question. 26.It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been awarded the marks as per his performance in the interview. The petitioner has also no legal right to challenge the appointment of those private respondents, who belong to general category because he is a candidate belonging to OBC category. In his own category the marks obtained by the selected candidates are on higher side as compared to him. Therefore, they have been selected rightly by the 2nd respondent. 27.In this view of the matter, it lies ill in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that the appointment of the private respondents be set aside and quashed. 28.The Law relating to the agency is well settled at this stage and has been elaborated powers of Court interfere with the selection made by a recognized as under by learned Single Judge in para 8 of the judgment in Mahesh Gupta’s case cited supra after taking note of various judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also by this Court:- “8. The law relating to the powers of the court in exercise of judicial review to interfere with the selection made by a duly constituted Board or Selection Committee and the circumstances in which a challenge can be laid against the selection is by now fairly settled. There can be no dispute with the legal position that court cannot substitute its own opinion to brush aside the outcome of such selection made by the experts in the field. There can be no dispute with the legal position that court cannot substitute its own opinion to brush aside the outcome of such selection made by the experts in the field. It is also an established legal position that a candidate who has once participated in the selection process and had not raised any objection as to the composition of the Selection Committee, cannot be permitted to raise such an objection at a later stage, when he comes to know that he could not cross the bar. In this regard, the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have placed reliance upon large number of judicial pronouncements starting from the year 1957 upto 2010, viz. (1) Manak Lal, Advocate vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others, AIR 1957 S.C. 425 (para 8) (2) Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow and others , (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 585, (para 15), (3) Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others and connected matters, (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 417 (paras 9 and 18), (4) Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1043, (para 23), (5) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and others, (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 305 (para 13), (6) Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1088, (paras 9 and 16), (7) Shri Bhajan Dass Kaith vs. H.P. Public Service Commission and another, 1998 (2) Shim. B.S. Mahajan and others, (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 305 (para 13), (6) Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1088, (paras 9 and 16), (7) Shri Bhajan Dass Kaith vs. H.P. Public Service Commission and another, 1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 253, (para 8),(8)Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356, (para 16),(9)M.V. Thimmaiah and others vs. Union Public Service Commission and others, (2008) 2Supreme Court Cases 119, (para 19), (10) Sadananda Halo and others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others and connected matters, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 619, (paras 58 and 59), (11) Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 227, (paras 31 and 32), (12) Swaran Lata vs. Union of India and others, 1979 (1) Services Law Reporter 710 (para 66) and (13) judgment dated 25th June, 2010, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP Nos.4120 and 4121 of 2009, Anay Kumar and another vs. State of H.P. and others and the connected matter.” 29.In view of what has been stated hereinabove the only inescapable conclusion would be that no case is made out for any interference with the selection process culminating into the appointment of the private respondents 3 to 15 as Assistant District Attorneys in the Department of Prosecution, initiated by the 2nd respondent. 30.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.