JUDGMENT AND ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/07/2008 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 75/2007, by which the promotion of the appellants to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch) affected vide order dated 21/09/2007 has been set aside. While doing so, direction was also issued to fill up the vacancies as per the provisions of the Rules providing opportunity to all those who were within the zone of consideration. It is submitted by Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the aforesaid directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, entire exercise for promotion was redone and by various orders, namely, orders dated 26/09/2008, 19/08/2010, 19/08/2011, 25/10/2011 and 10/09/2013, all the incumbents barring two of the writ petitioners have been promoted. He submits that in case the earlier promotion of the appellants affected vide the order dated 21/09/2007 is restored, it will only be a question of determination of seniority between the appellants who were the private respondents in the writ petition, vis-a-vis the writ petitioners. 2. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel representing the newly impleaded respondents supporting the case of the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law, firstly because the writ petitioners duly participated in the selection process impugned in the writ petition and thereby took a chance for favourable consideration and thus they were estopped from turning around the same so as to question the validity of the very selection in which they had participated. Secondly, the particular selection procedure having been adopted by the State respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances as a measure of policy decision and by relaxing the rules and the said policy decision and the order of relaxation of rules having not been challenged in the writ petition, the consequential action by means of holding the selection could not have been challenged. 3. None has appeared for the writ petitions who are the respondents in this appeal in spite of service of notice. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned AAG, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record. 4. The matter pertains to promotion of Havilders to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch). The selection for the purpose was conducted as per the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned AAG, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record. 4. The matter pertains to promotion of Havilders to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch). The selection for the purpose was conducted as per the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. As per the laid down procedure, the promotions were to be affected on the basis of the assessment to be made in respect of the performance of the Havilders on following points :- "1. Personal turn out 15 2. Proficiency in drill 15 3. Command and Control 15 4. Handling and Practical Knowledge of weapon 15 5. Field Craft 15 6. General Knowledge (Written) 25 Total 100" 5. In addition to the above, the following service records of the last five years were also required to be considered in the scale indicated therein :- "1. Rewards - 1 (one) mark for each Reward. Maximum 5 marks. 2. Punishment - One mark to be Deducted for each minor punishment. Maximum 5 marks. 3. Bonus Marks Will Be Given For The Following :- a) Police Medal :- i) P.G.M./PPM - 5 marks ii) GM/PM - 4 marks iii) Any Governor's Medal - 2 marks b) GS Marks - 2 (two) marks each. Maximum of 6 marks. c) Specialised Course - 2 (two) marks more than 3 (three) months."" 6. The selection was conducted during the period from 07/02/2006 to 11/02/2006 and the results of the said test was published in which while the writ petitioners were placed at Sl. No. 53, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94 and 117 respectively while respondents No. 4 -14 were placed at Sl. No. 49, 38, 47, 41, 43, 34, 51, 33, 36, 44, 52, 56, 42, 40, 37, 35, 57, 32, 61, 46, 48, 50, 54, 45, 67, 92, 101, 120, 89, 106, 150, 157, 166, 200, 197, 161 and 204 respectively. 7. Based on the results of the departmental test, promotions were affected by promoting the Havilders who had occupied merit positions at Sl. No. 1 to 31. They were so promoted by order dated 06/03/2006. 8. After the aforesaid selection was conducted, the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, was notified in the official Gazette on 01/05/2006, which superseded the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. No. 1 to 31. They were so promoted by order dated 06/03/2006. 8. After the aforesaid selection was conducted, the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, was notified in the official Gazette on 01/05/2006, which superseded the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. Rule 397 of the Mizoram Police Manual laid down the procedure for promotion. Due to establishment of 3rd IRBN and deployment of Constables/Havilders in Chattishgarh, a highly disturbed State known for nauxalite operation, the department felt the necessity to fill up 35 Nos. of vacant posts of SI(AB). With a view to deal with the matter effectively and having regard to the fact that it was a transitory period towards switching over to the Mizoram Police Manual from the Assam Police Manual, a proposal was mooted for amending Rule 397 and also to make one time relaxation of the Rules. In this connection, the Director General of Police, Mizoram, Aizawl wrote the Annexure-9 letter dated 04/07/2007 to the Home Commissioner, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl. Since the letter is the basis of whole controversy, the same is reproduced below for a ready reference. "No. E/PHQ/A/104/237 Government of Mizoram Police Headquarters : Aizawl Dated Aizawl the 4th July, 2007 To The Home Commissioner, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl. Subj: Promotion of Havildars to SI(AB) to fill up existing vacancies of 35 posts and Amendment of Rules thereof. Ref : PHQ letter No. E/PHQ/A/104/23 dated 13.4.2007. Sir, 1. With reference to subject above and in continuation of our letter cited above, it is to state that promotion of Havildars to SI Armed Battalion is needed to be done immediately as the 3rd IR Battalion is already being established by posting the Commandant and some other supporting staff. The recruit constables for the 3rd IR Battalion are also presently undergoing basic trainings w.e.f 14.6.2007 at 5 (five) Training Centres. However, Mizoram Police Manual on the basis of which promotion is to be done was notified w.e.f. 1.5.2006. Being in the transitional period, there are many provisions in the new Manual which cannot be practically followed at this stage. Among such provisions, Rule 397 (promotion of Havindars to the rank of SI) by which the existing 35 vacancies have to be filled up is included. Being in the transitional period, there are many provisions in the new Manual which cannot be practically followed at this stage. Among such provisions, Rule 397 (promotion of Havindars to the rank of SI) by which the existing 35 vacancies have to be filled up is included. These provisions of Rule 397 make it compulsory that those Havildars to be promoted to SI should pass Platoon Commander Cadre course of three months duration and that the Platoon Commander Course should be organised on regular basis from the Havildar on seniority basis who have completed three years of service. As the provision is newly made in the Manual, there can be no Havildars who have successfully completed three months' Platoon Commanders Course, which means that no Havildar is eligible for promotion unless relaxation of this provision is made. Similarly, the department has also considered the possibility of using Assam Police Manual only for promotion of Havildars to SI by making some relaxation. This is also found not feasible because :- (i) Conduct of fresh departmental test will involve more than 400 Havildars, out of which more than 100 are presently deployed in Chhattishgarh. At this present juncture, it is not possible to dislocate operational duties in Chhattisgarh. (ii) Training of new recruits are going on at 5 (five) training centers where training instructors of more than 150 Havildars are involved. Conducting fresh departmental test will certainly bound to effect the on going smooth training of the recruit constables. Such being the case where promotion can neither be done as per Rule 397 of Mizoram Police Manual nor under Rule 41 of Assam police Manual, a proposal is put forward for examination and consideration as under :- a. The result of the last Departmental Test conducted between 7-11 Feb, 2006 may be revalidated by Govt. notification, as the test was conducted under Assam Police Manual which seems to be already invalid after notification of Mizoram Police Manual on 1.5.2006. b. After revalidation of the merit list as above, interview may be conducted among those who secure 50% of the marks in the Test. The interview may carry 50 marks. The personal interview is suggested because no interview was conducted in the last departmental test due to absence of the provision in the APM and at the same time more than one year had passed since the departmental test was conducted. The interview may carry 50 marks. The personal interview is suggested because no interview was conducted in the last departmental test due to absence of the provision in the APM and at the same time more than one year had passed since the departmental test was conducted. If the above proposal is approved, one time relaxation by amending Rule 397 of Mizoram Police Manual have to be made as per sample enclosed in annexure. 2. Amendment of Rule 396 - Supernumerary Havildars - The provisions of supernumerary Havildars provided under Rule 396 is no longer relevant in view of the ACP scheme already applied to all Government servants. As per ACP scheme those who have put in 16 years and 30 years of service without promotion or with only one promotion respectively are allowed to enjoy next higher scale of pay. Therefore, Rule 396 may be deleted. 3. Amendment of Rule 285 - Mizoram Police Battalion : The word Havildar Clerk (Hav) which appeared under Rule 285 (3)(a) should be deleted as there is no Havildar Clerk in Mizoram Police. The above proposal may kindly be examined and approved at the earliest. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible 4/7/07 (ZORAMMAWIA) AIG-I For Director General of Police, Mizoram, Aizawl." 9. After the aforesaid proposal made by the DGP, Mizoram, the Government of Mizoram in the Home Department vide its Annexure-10 notification dated 25/07/2007 exercising its power conferred by Rule 4(3), Chapter-I of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, extended one time relaxation of Rule 397(1)(b) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 in favour of the Havilders as per list enclosed requiring successful completion of Platoon Commander Post for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The notification was issued with the concurrence of the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (GSW). 10. Following the aforesaid development, the Government of Mizoram in the Home Department vide its annexure-11 letter dated 25/07/2007 addressed to the Director General of Police, Mizoram conveyed the decision for holding the personal interview of the candidates who had secured 50% marks in the last departmental test. It was also conveyed that interview marks would be 33% of the written marks. It was also conveyed that interview marks would be 33% of the written marks. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the counter affidavit that was filed by the official respondents, it was conveyed that the interview marks as was conducted by the Police Establishment Board (PEB) was interpreted to be 30% of the total marks of the departmental test (100 marks), inasmuch as, the departmental test earlier conducted between 7-11th February, 2006 consisted of 100 marks under different heads, as noted above. Thus, it was the definite case of the respondents that 33% marks ear marked for interview was to be construed as 33% of the total 100 marks and not 25 marks ear-marked for General Knowledge (written). 11. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioners duly participated in the selection process that followed pursuant to the aforesaid policy decision with one time relaxation of the relevant rules. It so happened that after such participation when the results were declared, they found their merit positions to be lower than that of the appellants. Be it stated here that only those candidates who had secured 50% marks in the earlier departmental test had only been called for to participate in the interview. 12. Two fold arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge was that the interview that was conducted being not contemplated in the rules, the departmental authority could not have taken recourse to such a procedure and secondly the interview marks (33%) was in the higher side when compared to total 25 marks for General Knowledge (written). However, the fact of the matter is that as per the decision of the PEB, 33% marks against the interview head was calculated on the basis of 100 marks under different heads indicated above. 13. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel representing the newly impleaded respondents, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah & others v. Anil Joshi and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 submits that the writ petitioners having participated in the impugned selection process without raising any objection whatsoever and thereby taking a chance for favourable consideration could not have turned around the same so as to question the validity of the selection itself. He submits that had it been a case of scoring higher merit than that of the appellants and the newly impleaded respondents, the writ petitioners surely would not have invoked the writ jurisdiction agitating their alleged grievance. In the aforesaid decision in Ramesh Ch. Shah (Supra), the Apex Court dealing with the proposition relating to waiver and estoppels, held that the persons having participated in the process of selection with the full knowledge that recruitment was being made under the relevant criteria, had waived their right to question the methodology adopted for making the selection. In para 18 of the judgement, the Apex Court held thus :- "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome." 14. In Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 under similar circumstances, the Apex Court held 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 turned round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. For a ready reference, relevant portion of para 9 of the judgment is quoted below :- "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" 15. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in (1986) Supp SCC 285, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of 3 Honourable Judges of the Apex 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. Similar view has been expressed in Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan reported in (1998) 3 SCC 694 . As in the instant case, in the said case also, all the candidates who were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they appeared in the selection. It was held that in such a situation, such candidates cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected, that the procedure of selection was not proper. In the said case the Apex Court also had the occasion to deal with the allocation of interview marks. 50 ; 30 and 20 marks respectively allocated for written test, interview and confidential report, for considering promotion, held was not excessive. While holding so, the Apex Court also took notice of the spreading of marks under different heads. In para 14 of the judgment, it was held thus :- "14. A look at the above composition will place beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no scope for arbitrary exercise of selection or favouritism. It is also relevant to point out that though in the pleadings mala fides was raised vaguely, nothing was established nor did the Tribunal discuss about it. A look at the above composition will place beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no scope for arbitrary exercise of selection or favouritism. It is also relevant to point out that though in the pleadings mala fides was raised vaguely, nothing was established nor did the Tribunal discuss about it. In the absence of any mala fides pleaded and established and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the importance given to the interview cannot by any means be termed as arbitrary or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution." 16. From the above narration of facts and the position of law, what has emerged is that the petitioners knowing fully well about the methodology of selection duly participated in the selection without any protest whatsoever and took a chance for favourable consideration. However, when the results were not upto their expectation as they had desired, they turned around the entire selection so as to question the very validity of the same. It will be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, two of the petitioners had been promoted by order dated 23/10/2007, which was in continuation of the earlier promotion order dated 21/09/2007 impugned in the writ petition. By filing CM application No. 124/07 they prayed for deletion of their names as writ petitioners. The prayer was allowed vide order dated 03/12/2007. 17. As regards the methodology that was adopted for conducting the selection, it has been noticed that the particular course of action had to be adopted in view of the peculiar fact-situation in which Mizoram Police personnel had to be deployed in a disturbed State like Chattishgarh. At that relevant point of time, the state of Mizoram also experienced a transitory period for switching over to Mizoram Police Manual from Assam Police Manual. It was in such circumstances, following a detail procedure, a proposal was made for relaxation of the rules and also to revalidate the earlier select list towards selection of the candidates who had secured 50% and above marks in the departmental test. The writ petitioners being fully aware of the said position and also being eligible as per the relaxed norms, duly appeared in the selection/interview and thereby took a chance for favourable consideration. The writ petitioners being fully aware of the said position and also being eligible as per the relaxed norms, duly appeared in the selection/interview and thereby took a chance for favourable consideration. However, as noted above, with the declaration of the results thereof they found that their merit positions were below the appellants and the newly impleaded respondents. It was in that kind of a situation, they approached this Court challenging the very process of selection and the methodology adopted. However, in the process, no challenge was made to the orders passed towards adopting the policy decision and also towards relaxation of the rules. 18. Clause 4(3) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 provides the power of relaxation, in terms of which where the Governor of Mizoram is satisfied that the operation of any of the provisions of the Manual causes undue hardship, in any particular case, he may dispensed with or relaxed that provision to such extent and subject to such conditions, as he may considered necessary, for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The Apex Court in the case of Amrik Singh v. Union of India, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 393 interpreting such clause of relaxation held that such powers to relax rules is not arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. In M. Venkatswarlu and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 167 dealing with similar rules of relaxation, which was exercised by the authority to clear back-log vacancies, the Apex Court held that the authority was empowered to grant relaxation even to an individual. In the instant case also, the Governor of Mizoram, exercising the above power of relaxation inbuilt in the Mizoram Police Manual took recourse to relaxation to meet with the emergent situation and in the peculiar facts and circumstances which cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. The writ petitioners have also not attributed any malafide and/or colourable exercise of power by the authorities in taking recourse to the said procedure. 19. Above being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners were debarred from making a challenge to the order dated 21/09/2007 by which promotions on the basis of the impugned selection were affected. As noticed above, most of the incumbents have already been promoted to the higher rank. 19. Above being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners were debarred from making a challenge to the order dated 21/09/2007 by which promotions on the basis of the impugned selection were affected. As noticed above, most of the incumbents have already been promoted to the higher rank. Consequent upon this decision it will only be a matter of determination of seniority based on the respective dates of promotion. 20. Writ Appeal is allowed by setting aside and quashing the order 30/07/2008 passed in WP(C) No. 75/2007. Now the respondents shall take necessary consequential action in terms of this judgment and order as expeditiously as possible.