JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC representing the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. R De, learned counsel representing the Respondent Nos.6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 to 25 and 27 to 31. Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 1. In respect of notice upon the remaining Respondents, Office Note dated 13.6.2013 indicates that such service of notice is complete against all the Respondents. 2. On 2.6.2010 an Advertisement was issued by the Central Selection Board, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar inviting applications for filling up 23 posts of Sub-Inspector of Schools under the Education Department in BTC area. The petitioner being eligible in all respects, responded to the said advertisement and in course of time, he was called to appear in the written examination. The petitioner having qualified in the written examination appeared in the viva-voce test and eventually the selection process culminated with the preparation of Select List showing 26 candidates as being selected on the basis of merit. The said Select List is Annexure-M to the writ petition. The petitioner not having found himself selected in the approved list of candidates on merit basis, instituted the present proceedings challenging the decision of the Selection Committee in preparing the impugned Select List. 3. The basic ground of challenge is that the petitioner who hails from the Scheduled Caste category nor any other candidates hailing from the same category had been selected. The said action on the part of the Respondents is not commensurate with the concept of adequate representation. The petitioner refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 and from paragraph 4 thereof, submits that on the very admission of the Respondents, due consideration had been given for adequate representation from amongst the "non-tribals" at the time of selection and that the Select List itself stood proof of the same. Mr. Chauhan submits that the said statement is not in tandem with the information that can be derived from the Select List, in that no candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category had been selected. 4. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC submits that there is absolutely no confusion with regard to the statement made at paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition read with the Select List. 4. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC submits that there is absolutely no confusion with regard to the statement made at paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition read with the Select List. The statement is only in respect of making a declaration that adequate representation from among the "non-tribals" have been made during the selection, which stands vindicated by the Select List. 5. A perusal of the said Select List, which had been approved on the basis of merit, makes it abundantly clear that indeed candidates who are "non-tribals" had also been included in the Select List. As such, there is no discrepancy in the statement made at paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition read with the Select List in question. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that a person having participated in a selection process, cannot go back and challenge the process unless there are ingredients to show that the same was arbitrary and goes to the root of the matter. Amongst the catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, Mr. Bhuyan places reliance in the case of Madan Lal and ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir and ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 . 7. What is discernible from the above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case warranting interference of the selection made by the respondent authorities. The approved list of candidates prepared on merit basis do not suffer from any infirmity. Also, the petitioner being a participant himself cannot be allowed to challenge the same selection process, short of making out a clear case of arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, which is not present in the instant case. Accordingly, this writ petition must fail and, therefore, stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.