JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner herein challenges the selection of respondent No. 3 Ms. Shalu Thakur, who is a Physics Technician in the Indira Gandhi Medical College (I.G.M.C. for short). It is pleaded by the petitioner that he was one of the applicants for this post. Advertisement (Annexure: P1) was issued by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti of I.G.M.C, Shimla for walk-in-interviews for the post of Physics Technician. The interviews were scheduled for 11.10.2010 at 11 A.M. Annexure:P2 are the rules issued on 9.6.2000 for this post providing the age limit and B.Sc. degree in Medical Technology (X-Ray/Radiology) or its equivalent from a recognised University. The post was to be filled in 100% by direct recruitment. The method for selection was on the basis of viva-voce test conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other recruiting authority as the case may be. The respondent-Shalu Thakur has been appointed on contract basis against this post for a period of one year 11.11.2010 (Annexure:P4) on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- per month. 2. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was eligible in all respects having passed B.Sc. degree in Medical Technology in December, 2009. According to the petitioner, the employment was offered to candidates batch wise. That is the batch passing the exam first takes priority over the next batch. The petitioner thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act and placed on record Annexure:P3 which is the award sheet of the candidates at the interview. At this juncture, I note that a Committee was constituted consisting of Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Associate Prof, Psychiatry Deptt., Sh. D.C. Negi, Addl. Director (Admin.), Dr. R.K. Seem, Prof. & HOD, Radiotherapy, Dr. K.S. Rana, Sr. Medical Superintendent and Dr. Surender Kashyap, Principal of the I.G.M.C. According to the award sheet, the petitioner has been placed as the first candidate on the waiting list and Anukool Sharma as second. The selected candidate Shalu Thakur scores 34.91 marks whereas the petitioner 33.35. The detail of the award sheet is given as under: "Award Sheet of the interview conducted for the post of Physics Technician on dated11-10-2010 Sr. No. Name of candidate Academic Qualification Interview/Total Remarks 10 5 10+2 10 B.Sc. Medical Technology 1. Amit Kumar 3.32 6 16.03 8 33.35 Waiting-1 2. Anukool Sharma 3.99 7.52 15.5 6 33.01 Waiting-2 3. The detail of the award sheet is given as under: "Award Sheet of the interview conducted for the post of Physics Technician on dated11-10-2010 Sr. No. Name of candidate Academic Qualification Interview/Total Remarks 10 5 10+2 10 B.Sc. Medical Technology 1. Amit Kumar 3.32 6 16.03 8 33.35 Waiting-1 2. Anukool Sharma 3.99 7.52 15.5 6 33.01 Waiting-2 3. Shalu Thakur 4.1 6.88 16.93 7 34.91 Selected Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Dr. Ramesh Kumar Associate Prof. Psychiatry Deptt Sh. D.C.Negi Addl. Director (Admin) IGMC, Shimla Dr. R.K. Seem Prof.&HOD Radiotherapy IGMC, Shimla Sd/- Sd/- Dr. K.S. Rana Sr. Medical Superintendent I.G.Hospital Shimla Dr. Surender Kashyap Principal, IGMC.Shimla." 3. A bare reading of this gradation would show that the selected respondent scores marginally higher in the academic qualification i.e. 4.1 for 10th, 6.88 for 10+2 and 16.93 for B.Sc. Medical Technology whereas the petitioner scores 3.32, 6 and 16.03 respectively. Under these three heads, the petitioner scores 25.35 whereas the respondent 27.91 which leave a difference of 2.56 in favour of the respondent. 4. In the viva, the petitioner scores 8 marks out of 10 whereas the respondent 7 out of 10 and in the overall, the selected respondent scores 34.91 and the petitioner 33.35. The overall difference between the two is 1.56. 5. There is no room for manipulation so far as the award on academic qualification is concerned. This is based on objective assessment of the records of both the candidates where I have noted the difference between the two is 2.56. In the interview, the petitioner scores better than the respondent but in the overall assessment, respondent scores above the petitioner. This analysis was necessary for the reason that one of the allegations made against the selection of the respondent is that the father of this respondent is serving in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Associated Hospital and it is for this reason that a different criteria for selection has been adopted by the Committee. This submission is required to be rejected out right. I do not find that the Committee composed of eminent doctors would be influenced by this fact since I find no error in the final result. This submission follows the other submission which is that according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules Annexure: P3, it is only viva voce test along with the marks obtained in B.Sc. Medical Technology which are to be considered. This submission follows the other submission which is that according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules Annexure: P3, it is only viva voce test along with the marks obtained in B.Sc. Medical Technology which are to be considered. I cannot accept this submission because if the only criteria to be adopted is the viva voce test which in the present case has been given maximum 10 marks and rightly so in order to eliminate the chance of manipulation the entire interview based on viva voce. The award sheet would show that 25 marks have been allocated to B.Sc. Medical Technology, 10 marks to the 10+2 academic performance, 5 marks to the 10th and 10 marks for the interview out of total 50 i.e. ?th have been allocated to the viva voce test which I find to be in order. 6. I have also seen the original record and do not find any manipulation. It was possible only in the interview but the petitioner scores higher than the respondent. Merely because the respondent is the daughter of a serving employee in I.G.M.C. Shimla (PWD Department) cannot be considered as a factor influencing the entire selection. I also do not find any weight in the submission that he was in a position to influence the Selection Committee. In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, (2001) 2 SCC 330 , the Supreme Court holds: 10. Before adverting to the rival contentions as raised in the matter, it would also be convenient to note the other perspective of the issue of bias to wit: mala fides. It is trite knowledge that bias is included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice". 11. It is at this juncture, therefore, the relevancy of the factual details is otherwise felt to assess the situation as to whether there is existing cogent evidence of improper conduct and motive resultantly a mala fide move on the part of the appellants herein against respondent No. 1 V.K. Khanna. 11. It is at this juncture, therefore, the relevancy of the factual details is otherwise felt to assess the situation as to whether there is existing cogent evidence of improper conduct and motive resultantly a mala fide move on the part of the appellants herein against respondent No. 1 V.K. Khanna. The records depict that immediately before the departure of the earlier Ministry in the State of Punjab and Shri Khanna being the Chief Secretary of the State in terms of the specific orders of the then Chief Minister referred two cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation: The first being accumulation of assets in the hands of Shri Bikramjit Singh, IAS being disproportionate to the known source of income and secondly allotment of land and release of funds to the Punjab Cricket Association the Government, however, changed and soon thereafter the petitioner was charge-sheeted inter alia for acting in a manner which cannot but be ascribed to be mala fide and in gross violation of the established norms and procedure of the Government function contrary to the service rules and in any event, lack of fair play and lack of integrity with high moral as was expected of a senior civil servant." (P.340) 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo and others v. Momtazali Sheikh and others, (2008) 4 SCC 619 on the question of allocation of marks of viva voce. The Court, inter alia, holds: 35. Similarly, we are also not impressed with the complaint that the District-wise restrictions were removed by the Government by its letter dated 16.11.2004 apart from the fact that both the courts have not commented on this aspect adversely against the selection process. We are of the opinion that, that by itself cannot be a reason to find fault with the selection process, again on the ground that the petitioners were not able to show as to what prejudice was caused because of the removal of such step taken by the Government on 16.11.2004. On the other hand we are of the clear opinion that the Government had made the selection process broader by removing the District-wise restrictions. On the other hand we are of the clear opinion that the Government had made the selection process broader by removing the District-wise restrictions. As regards, the complaint that 50 marks were allotted for the personal interview or viva voce, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have found that in the peculiar circumstances it was of no consequence. We also endorse this view as no arguments were addressed on this point before us. Therefore, even that complaint has to go. In the earlier part of this judgment we have already noted that these 50 marks were also distributed on as many as six factors and each factor had separate marks. The oral test, after the distribution of the marks over the factors like educational qualifications, smartness, general ambience in reading, writing, extra qualifications, proficiency in sports and martial arts, is only left with 20 marks which, in our opinion, is quite reasonable. We do not, therefore, find anything wrong on account of the allotment of 50 marks for viva voce. This is apart from the fact that the unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process could not turn back and call names to the system 59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar & Ors [ (2007) 8 SCC 100 ] where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party. This was a case where different cut off marks were fixed for the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. This Court in para 10 of its judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that there was a power in the employer to fix the cut off marks which power was neither denied nor disputed and further that the cut off marks were fixed on a rationale basis and, therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. [(1986) Supp. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. [(1986) Supp. SCC 285] where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect: "There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process." In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the court did not go into those exceptions since the same were not material". (Pp.636, 637, 645 & 646). 8. There is no merit in the submissions made by the petitioner that the selection process was tailor made for respondent No. 3, who was in a position to influence the selection process because her father was working in the I.G.M.C. as an employee. Even otherwise, the process is fair and no fault can be found with allocation of marks under various heads to assess suitability of the candidates, in fact, the only place where there can be an allegation of bias would be interview where the petitioner scores higher marks. There is no weight whatsoever in the allegation that the selection is to be made on batch wise basis. To accept this contention would be to restrict competition which is against the concept of public employment. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.