ORDER 1. Three petitioners have joined together and have filed this writ petition as a common proceeding. 2. Petitioners seek quashing of select list dated 27-08-2008 for appointment as Radiographer under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services, Assam. Petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to conduct the selection process afresh. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Petitioners claim to be diploma holders in Radiography Certificate Course and have considerable experience of working as Radiographer. 5. Director of Health Services, Assam issued advertisement dated 08-06-2008 for recruitment to 26 vacancies in the post of Radiographer under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services, Assam. Petitioners being eligible, responded to the said advertisement and offered their candidature. Petitioners received call letters dated 05-07-2008 to appear before the Selection Board on 23-07-2008 in the office of the Joint Director of Health Services, MMC Hospital, Panbazar, Guwahati-1. In the call letters it was mentioned that interview would comprise of both oral and practical tests. 6. Petitioners appeared before the Selection Board on 23-07-2008. Selection Board comprised of three members. Petitioners were interviewed for about 4 to 5 minutes each and according to them they were mostly asked irrelevant questions. Petitioners were informed by the authorities that because of paucity of time their practical test could not be conducted on that day and that it would be held on a later date which would be informed to the candidates. But the petitioners were never informed about holding of such practical test. Infact, no practical test was held. 7. Later on petitioners could come to know that without holding practical test, select list was prepared on 27-08-2008. But such select list was not published in any newspaper. Petitioners collected the names of the selected candidates from the Directorate of Health Services. Names of petitioners were not included in the select list. 8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 9. Contention of the petitioners is that the selection was confined only to oral interview. Though candidates were informed that both oral interview and practical test would be conducted, no practical test was conducted. This vitiated the selection process as it introduced subjective-ness in the selection. Selection was carried out in an arbitrary manner without following the declared procedure only to select some favoured candidates. Selection was pre-determined. In the process merit of the petitioners were over looked. This vitiated the selection process as it introduced subjective-ness in the selection. Selection was carried out in an arbitrary manner without following the declared procedure only to select some favoured candidates. Selection was pre-determined. In the process merit of the petitioners were over looked. Therefore select list dated 27-08-2008 should be quashed and fresh selection be held. 10. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Director of Health Services, Assam has filed affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that as per Government order dated 19-07-2008, Selection Board was constituted with two Joint Directors of Health Services and one expert from the Radiology Department of Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. Interview commenced from 22-07-2008. Members of the Selection Board decided to conduct the interview based on the following points- age, eligibility criteria, reservation criteria etc. Knowledge of the candidates was assessed based on questions put to the candidates. Practical skill was assessed by asking questions on the equipments like cassette and Hangers (different sizes) film badge, lead apron, lead guard, x-ray films of different sizes with artifacts, quality exposure, developer and fixer solutions etc. The candidates were also asked to demonstrate about certain views of chest, extremities, skill etc. Selection Board decided that it was not possible to judge knowledge of the candidates by asking each candidate to perform X-ray, CT scan etc. on patients as the process would be too time consuming, cumbersome and practically impossible. Allegations made by the petitioners that the interview was conducted in a perfunctory manner with a view to select some pre-determined candidates has been denied. It is stated that neither any member of the Selection Board nor any official of the Health Department had at any point of time informed the candidates that practical test would be conducted on a subsequent date. It is stated that the select list was declared by displaying the same in the office notice board of the Directorate but the same was torn by some miscreants. However, appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. Selection was made on the basis of merit as judged by the members of the Selection Board. 11. Some of the selected candidates, such as, respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 to 14, 16 to 19, 21 to 26 and 29 have filed a common affidavit. They have taken up a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. 11. Some of the selected candidates, such as, respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 to 14, 16 to 19, 21 to 26 and 29 have filed a common affidavit. They have taken up a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Contesting respondents have stated that petitioners had participated in the selection process but after they failed to secure selection, they instituted the present proceeding. At no point of time prior to filing of the writ petition did the petitioners lodge any objection before any authority regarding the alleged anomalies in the selection process. On the contrary, petitioners have only raised the above objection in the writ petition after they came to know that they were not selected. However, allegation made by the petitioners about anomalies and illegalities in the selection process has been disputed and denied by the contesting respondents. It is stated that the Selection Committee had conducted the selection in a most professional manner. Candidates were fairly and objectively assessed. According to them, they were asked questions relating to practical knowledge of the subject and they were required to demonstrate certain practical aspects of the trade. They have also stated that nobody had told them that a separate practical test would be conducted at a later date. They therefore seek dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. SK Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, who has produced the record. Also heard Mr. SR Gogoi, learned Counsel for the private respondents. 13. Mr. Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State cannot depart from the declared mode of selection. When the candidates were informed that the selection process would comprise of oral interview and practical test, the authority was bound to conduct the selection in such manner. Confining the selection only to oral interview besides being a departure from the declared mode of selection, would also not be justified inasmuch as in such a case the selection would be based entirely on subjective assessment without any objective assessment of the comparative merit of the competing candidates. He also submits that the interview was conducted in a very casual and perfunctory manner. As a result, merit became the causality and many undeserving candidates were selected to the exclusion of deserving meritorious candidates like the petitioners. He also submits that the interview was conducted in a very casual and perfunctory manner. As a result, merit became the causality and many undeserving candidates were selected to the exclusion of deserving meritorious candidates like the petitioners. He therefore submits that the impugned select list may be set aside and quashed and the State respondents should be directed to hold selection afresh in accordance with law. 14. Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel submits that though in the call letters it was mentioned that both oral interview and practical test would be held, members of the Selection Board decided to test the knowledge of the candidates regarding practical skills during the oral interview itself. About 187 candidates had responded to the advertisement. The Selection Board members were of the view that asking each individual candidate to operate live X-ray machine, CT scan etc. on patients would be extremely time consuming and unmanageable. Therefore, they had confined the selection to oral interview only. Merit of the candidates were assessed by the individual members whereafter the merit positions were determined. Finally, the select list was published in order of merit subject to reservation requirement. Following the selection, appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates pursuant to which they had joined in the year 2008 itself. 15. Mr. Gogoi, learned Counsel appearing for the selected candidates submits that petitioners are estopped from assailing the selection since they themselves had participated in the selection and only after they found that they were not selected, they filed the present writ petition. Petitioners did not complain or lodge any objection before any authority either regarding non-holding of practical test or regarding conducting the interview in a perfunctory manner by the Selection Board members. He further submits that selection was conducted in a free and fair manner. Following their selection, contesting respondents have joined their respective posts and since then they are working for about 7 years now. 16. Submissions made have been considered. Record produced has also been perused. 17. A perusal of the record shows that an advertisement was published in the newspaper “The Sentinel” on 08-06-2008 which was issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam. By the said advertisement, applications were invited to fill up 26 vacancies in the post of Radiographer under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services, Assam. 17. A perusal of the record shows that an advertisement was published in the newspaper “The Sentinel” on 08-06-2008 which was issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam. By the said advertisement, applications were invited to fill up 26 vacancies in the post of Radiographer under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services, Assam. 3 vacancies were reserved for ST(P), 1 for ST(H), 3 for SC and 6 for OBC/MOBC categories. It was also stated that there would be reservation of vacancies for women candidates and physically disabled candidates as per the relevant law. Educational qualification prescribed was that applicant should have passed Radiography Certificate Course from the Medical Colleges of Assam or from the Regional Institute of Para-medical and Nursing, Aizawl. It was also provided that candidates should be between the age group of 18 to 38 years, relaxable by 5 years for SC/ST(P)/ST(H) candidates. Thus the advertisement did not disclose the manner in which the selection would be conducted. 18. Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department constituted a Selection Board to conduct oral and practical interview for selection of candidates for the post of Radiographer vide office order dated 19-07-2008. The Selection Board comprised of the following members:- (i) Joint Director of Health Services, MMCH, Guwahati Chairman (ii) Joint Director of Health Services (HQ) Member (iii) Dr. R. Talukdar, Asstt. Professor, Radiology Department and Deputy Superintendent, GMCH, Guwahati Member 19. It appears that 189 candidates had applied pursuant to the said advertisement dated 08-06-2008. The three member Selection Board conducted the interview on 22-07-2008, 23-07-2008 and 24-07-2008. Each of the three members awarded separate marks which were added to arrive at the total marks secured by each candidate. On the basis of marks secured, 26 candidates were selected by the Selection Board, which was forwarded to the Director of Health Services, Assam by the Chairman of the Selection Board. It was stated that because of non-availability of ST(H) candidate, one more candidate was included in the un-reserved category. Thereafter, the select list was signed by the Director of Health Services on 27-08-2008. On the same day appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. The record also discloses that police verification was carried out in respect of the selected candidates. They had joined their respective posts in different places and are being paid their salary. 20. Thereafter, the select list was signed by the Director of Health Services on 27-08-2008. On the same day appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. The record also discloses that police verification was carried out in respect of the selected candidates. They had joined their respective posts in different places and are being paid their salary. 20. As already noticed above, the advertisement did not stipulate that there would be practical test in addition to oral interview. However, in the call letters issued to the candidates as placed on record by the petitioners, it was mentioned that there would be oral and practical test. In the affidavit of respondent No.2 it has been explained that the oral interview was conducted in such a manner that it included elements of practical test. The affidavit also says that the select list was notified and was displayed in the office notice board. 21. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto it does not appear that petitioners had at any point of time objected to holding of oral interview only to the exclusion of physical test allegedly assured to them. It is evident that petitioners had participated in the selection. They did not file any objection or representation before the Director or any other authority immediately after the selection that no separate practical test was being held as allegedly assured to them. Only after the results were declared when the petitioners found that they were not selected that the present writ petition was filed. Had the petitioners been selected, perhaps they would not have raised the objection as they have done now. Law is well settled that a candidate who participated in the selection process without any demur, would be estopped from complaining that the selection process was not conducted in accordance with the declared manner. Having regard to the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the challenge made to the select list dated 27-08-2008 at the instance of the petitioners. Moreover, there are no specific allegations of wrong doing or lack of eligibility against any of the selected candidates. Further, as noticed above, the selected candidates are in service for about 7 years now. 22. This is however not to say that the selection process was carried out in a perfect manner. Moreover, there are no specific allegations of wrong doing or lack of eligibility against any of the selected candidates. Further, as noticed above, the selected candidates are in service for about 7 years now. 22. This is however not to say that the selection process was carried out in a perfect manner. Firstly, the authority ought to have ensured that there was some objectively in the selection process, if necessary by holding written test together with oral interview if holding of separate practical test was found to be time consuming, cumbersome and virtually impossible. Secondly, when the advertisement was published in the newspaper, the select list also ought to have been published in the newspaper or in different offices of the Health Department in the State since it was a state level selection instead of displaying the select list only in the office notice board in the office of the Director of Health Services, Assam. Now, with the advancement of technology, not only the results are required to be uploaded in the website of the Directorate but also the marks secured by the candidates should also be uploaded which will ensure transparency in the selection process. These are the aspects the Directorate shall bear in mind while conducting selection in future. 23. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is dismissed. 24. Record produced by Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel is returned back.