JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) In this batch of writ petitions, two categories of petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the selection process for appointment/promotion to the posts of Supervisors against 25% reserved quota, so initiated pursuant to Government Notification dated 04.06.2012. All the petitioners, who are in-service Anganwadi Workers, for the purpose of this judgment and order, comprises of (i) those who did not qualify in the written test (hereinafter alluded to as Category-A) and (ii) those qualifying in the written test and appearing in viva-voce test but not making it to the Final Merit List (hereinafter alluded to as Category-B). To be precise, the petitioners falling in the first category are the writ petitioners in WP(C) 843/2016; WP(C) 848/2016; WP(C) 960/2016; WP(C) 1443/2016; WP(C) 1382/2016; WP(C) 1947/2016; WP(C) 992/2016; WP(C) 845/2016; WP(C) 2197/2016; WP(C) 1988/2016; WP(C) 2242/2016; WP(C) 2440/2016; WP(C) 2472/2016; WP(C) 2293/2016; WP(C) 2775/2016; WP(C) 2816/2016 and WP(C) 1455/2016. The petitioners falling in the second category are the writ petitioners in WP(C) 846/2016; WP(C) 1043/2016; WP(C) 1292/2016; WP(C) 1388/2016; WP(C) 1440/2016; WP(C) 1836/2016; WP(C) 1075/2016; WP(C) 1088/2016; WP(C) 2477/2016; WP(C) 3146/2016 and WP(C) 3030/2016. 2. Facts to be noticed are that the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department issued Notification dated 04.06.2012 laying down the norms and guidelines for selection of candidates for appointment/promotion to the posts of Supervisors against 25% reserved quota from among the in-service Anganwadi Workers. As per the said Notification, selection is to be made on the basis of oral interview comprising of a total 100 marks and the distribution of marks was spelt out in the said Notification. The in-service Anganwadi Workers concerned were required to submit applications for appearing in the selection test before the respective Child Development Project Officer, who in turn was required to submit the same along with a consolidated list of candidates before the concerned District Social Welfare Officer, which eventually is to reach the Director of Social Welfare, Assam. Candidates were to be shortlisted by a process of scrutiny and be allowed to appear in the oral/viva-voce test. Candidates were to be shortlisted by a process of scrutiny and be allowed to appear in the oral/viva-voce test. Consequent upon individual performance in interview to be held by the District Level Selection Committee, the Final Merit List was to be prepared by the duly constituted State Level Selection Committee on the basis of the records of the individual marks-sheets of the members of the District Level Selection Committee and the Comparative Statement to be sent by the District Social Welfare Officer concerned. The Final Merit List was to be prepared strictly in order of merit by ensuring due representation from reserved categories. The said Final Merit List is then to be published by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam. The said Notification dated 04.06.2012, also lays down that the rules and procedure of the State/Central Government that conform to the requirements but not incorporated in the said Notification, shall also be followed. Apparently, all the writ petitioners submitted applications as per procedure. On 05.07.2014, a meeting was held amongst the Director of Social Welfare, Assam and officers of the Establishment Branch where a decision was taken for constitution of a District Level Committee for conducting written examination for appointment to the post of Supervisors against the 25% reserved quota. The members constituting the District Level Committee for conducting written examination was also decided upon. The Minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2014 was brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department vide letter dated 08.08.2014 for due consideration and necessary action. In reply, the Government in the Social Welfare Department agreed to the proposal of the Directorate for consideration of District Level Committee for conducting written examination as per guidelines and laid down procedure. The approval of the Social Welfare Department was communicated vide letter dated 30.09.2014. In early January, 2016, the petitioners were issued with Admit Cards for appearing in the written examination, which was held District-wise on 17.01.2016. As against 284 posts of Supervisors constituting 25% reserved quota, over 12000 (twelve thousand) in-service Anganwadi Workers appeared in the written-examination. On 27.01.2016, the list of 1144 candidates securing the cut-off marks and above and qualifying for viva-voce test was uploaded in the official website. As against 284 posts of Supervisors constituting 25% reserved quota, over 12000 (twelve thousand) in-service Anganwadi Workers appeared in the written-examination. On 27.01.2016, the list of 1144 candidates securing the cut-off marks and above and qualifying for viva-voce test was uploaded in the official website. Between 29.01.2016 and 30.01.2016, interview/viva-voce was held, in which 1097 candidates appeared and eventually the Final Merit List of 250 selected candidates was uploaded in the official website on 02.02.2016, followed by another Final Merit List of 73 candidates, so uploaded on 05.02.2016. Appointments were offered to 284 candidates after final scrutiny of the two lists by removing those roll numbers found duplicated in both the lists and the selectees/beneficiaries joined the post of Supervisors on 08.02.2016. 3. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to notice that all the aforesaid writ petitions were filed after appointments had been made to the 284 in-service Anganwadi Workers. Such appointment orders are neither assailed in this batch of writ petitions nor the 284 appointees are impleaded as party respondents, save and except in WP(C) 848/2016, where 4(four) selected candidates have been made parties, allegedly in representative capacity. 4. Mr. J. Deka, Advocate, leading the charge on behalf of the writ petitioners submits that the selection being done by introducing the component of written test, which is not provided under the Notification dated 04.06.2012, therefore, the selection so made cannot have legal sanction and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Mr. Deka submits that selection could only have been confined to oral interview by way of distribution of marks as per the guidelines set down in the Notification dated 04.06.2012. The introduction of written test to be conducted by a District Level Committee is also put to challenge on grounds that the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, was without power and jurisdiction to constitute the said Committee. Also, the Minutes of the Meeting held on 05.07.2014 was not notified. Mr. Deka also contends by referring to paragraph 10 and 11 in WP(C) 848/2016 that it was only under compelling circumstances that the petitioners had to appear in the written examination. As a matter of fact, it is submitted, that the petitioners were issued Admit Cards on 13.01.2016, on which date they came to learn that written test is scheduled on 17.01.2016. As a matter of fact, it is submitted, that the petitioners were issued Admit Cards on 13.01.2016, on which date they came to learn that written test is scheduled on 17.01.2016. Although they had approached the respondents concerned the next day objecting to the introduction of the new component, nothing was disclosed to them. The following two dates i.e. 15th and 16th of January, 2016 were State Holidays and, therefore, they had no option but to sit in the examination on 17th of January, 2016. As regards the issue as to why all the appointees/beneficiaries have not been impleaded as party respondents, Mr. Deka submits that the same was not possible in view of the fact that only Roll numbers of selected candidates had been shown in the Final Merit List. It is further contended that to overcome any procedural defect, the private respondent nos. 8 to 11 have been arrayed in representative capacity by making categorical allegations against each one of them, as would be apparent from the statements made in paragraphs 14 and 15 in WP(C) 848/2016. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, Mr. Deka submits that the writ petitioner no.3 who belongs to Scheduled Tribes (Plains) category have been shown to have secured 43 marks in written test. Situated thus and having regard to the cut-off marks for qualifying in the written examination, as applicable to Anganwadi Workers belonging to Scheduled Tribes (Plains) category, standing at 31 marks, the State respondents have grossly faulted in not calling the petitioner no.3 for interview/viva-voce test. 5. On the submission and legal proposition that the procedure prescribed under the Notification dated 04.06.2012 is binding in nature and no departure could have been made thereof, Mr. Deka relied upon the decisions in: (i) (2008) 10 SCC 687 – Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa; (ii) 2007 (3) GLT 196 – Manju Dutta & Ors. v. State of Tripura; (iii) (2007) 8 SCC 264 –M.P. State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav; (iv) 2014 (3) GLT (TR) 35 – Tanmoy Nath & Ors. v. State of Tripura. On the issue that the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) 848/2016 is maintainable, having at least joined 4(four) beneficiaries as party respondents in a representative capacity, Mr. Deka relied upon the case in Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1985 SC 167 . 6. v. State of Tripura. On the issue that the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) 848/2016 is maintainable, having at least joined 4(four) beneficiaries as party respondents in a representative capacity, Mr. Deka relied upon the case in Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1985 SC 167 . 6. Lending support, Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) 864/2016 submits that the entire selection was held at the whims of officers belonging to the branch level, as would be apparent from the Minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2014. Evidently, the selection being held de hors the norms and guidelines under the Notification dated 04.06.2012, the outcome of the said selection cannot be given legal recognition. Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) 1836/2016, adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. J. Deka and Mr. M. Dutta. Reliance is also placed in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1657 for the proposition that selection process should continue as per Advertisement and no change in the eligibility criteria is permissible during the process. Reliance is also placed in the case of Subodh Chintey v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) GLT 377 for the proposition that a candidate participating in a selection process cannot be debarred thereafter to question the validity thereof if the same suffers from apparent illegalities, rendering it non est. According to him, the plea of estoppel against the writ petitioners, as such, cannot be pressed into service. 7. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the Social Welfare Department submits that the Final Merit List was prepared by taking into consideration the marks obtained by candidates in both the written and viva test. As regards introduction of written test for the purpose of selection, Mr. Sharma submits that more than 12000 (Twelve Thousand) in-service Anganwadi Workers had vied for appointment/promotion to the post of Supervisors against 25% reserved quota and in order to bring in more transparency, the component of written test was introduced. According to him, this was done in terms of Notification dated 04.06.2012. He also submits that the said Notification dated 04.06.2012 do not create any embargo for holding written test. According to him, this was done in terms of Notification dated 04.06.2012. He also submits that the said Notification dated 04.06.2012 do not create any embargo for holding written test. Submission is also made that no challenge whatsoever has been made in any of the writ petitions alleging any gross irregularities and mischief in the conduct of the written test. Further contention of Mr. Sharma is that appointments have already been granted to 284 candidates on 06.02.2016 and such appointment orders are not under challenge in this batch of writ petitions. Referring to the judgment cited by Mr. J. Deka in the case of Tanmoy Nath (supra), Mr. Sharma submits that the same do not come to the aid of the writ petitioners, in as much as, at paragraph 127 of the judgment it has been made absolutely clear that the said judgment would operate prospectively and shall not affect the appointments already made unless the said appointments are under challenge before the Court on ground that employment policy is illegal. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma contends that the writ petitions are without any merit and the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process after having participated in the same and not having emerged successful. Mr. Sharma also contends that in the absence of any pleadings of any mischief in conducting the selection as being widespread and all-pervasive affecting the result, the writ petitions itself are not maintainable without bringing in the appointees/beneficiaries as party respondents in the case. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. This common judgment and order would answer the issues raised in this batch of writ petitions. 9. As the entire controversy revolves round the holding of written test, notice may be had as to how the same came about. The meeting of 05.07.2014 amongst the Director of Social Welfare, the Branch Officers and Assistants dealing with the Establishment Branch had resolved to constitute a District Level Committee for conducting written examination. Vide letter dated 08.08.2014 the Director informed the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department about the constitution of the District Level Committee with further information that the said Committee will conduct the written test as per guidelines and laid down procedure. Vide letter dated 08.08.2014 the Director informed the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department about the constitution of the District Level Committee with further information that the said Committee will conduct the written test as per guidelines and laid down procedure. A reply to this end was received from the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department vide letter dated 30.09.2014 agreeing to the proposal. What followed thereafter was the issue of Admit Cards to the aspirants, fixing 17.01.2016 as the date of written test, to be held district-wise. Apparently, all the petitioners appeared in the written test. 10. More than 12,000 in-service Anganwadi Workers, including all the petitioners, sat in the written examination. On record, there is nothing to demonstrate that any of the petitioners had expressed demur or objection to the holding of the written examination. Although the petitioners in WP(C) 848/2016 have pleaded in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition that they had approached the respondents concerned, there is no statement therein of having expressed any objection. Averment made is only to the extent that on approach being made to the office of the Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, nothing was disclosed to them. In paragraph 11 thereof it is also averred that they sat in the written examination on 17.01.2016 under compelling circumstances. This statement comes to no aid, in as much as, there is nothing to show that any objections had been raised before the respondent authorities immediately after being subjected to sit in the examination. Rather, challenge is made for the very first time in the present proceeding which was instituted after the entire selection process stood concluded with appointments also being completed. 11. As regards the legality in introducing the written test component, the Notification dated 04.06.2012 does not stifle such a procedure. Rather, Clause 12 of the said Notification postulates that all other rules and procedure of the State/Central Government that conforms to the present requirements but not incorporated in the Notification shall also be followed accordingly. As above, all the petitioners in both the categories participated without demur. The holding of written examination complies with the guidelines/requirements in terms of the aforesaid Clause 12 of the Notification. As above, all the petitioners in both the categories participated without demur. The holding of written examination complies with the guidelines/requirements in terms of the aforesaid Clause 12 of the Notification. Not to ignore, more than 12,000 candidates had vied for selection and the respondent authority in its bid to ensure transparency brought in the component of written examination, as legally entitled to, in terms of the prescription under Clause 12. The holding of written examination is not an anathema to the extant rules and procedure of the State/Central Government in a recruitment exercise. It is not a case that the rules of the game had been changed in the midstream or after the selection process had been initiated. As held in the case of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 633 , there is always a room for suspicion for the common appointments if oral interview is taken up as the only criteria. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that in introducing the written test component, the State respondents had resorted to a departure from the requirements or laid-down procedure under the Notification dated 04.06.2012. As a corollary, the judgments relied upon by the counsels for the petitioners on the binding nature of the Notification are, per se, not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present proceedings. 12. Evidently, the appointees to the post of Supervisors are not made party respondents in the present proceedings, save and except 4(four) of them, arrayed as Respondent Nos.8 to 11 in WP(C) 848/2016. Explanation tendered is that only the roll numbers of the selectees had been shown in the Final Merit List and, therefore, the petitioners suffered handicap. This explanation holds no water in the absence of any record demonstrating that the petitioners had either made application before the concerned State respondent for collecting the names or had suitably amended any of the writ petitions to implead the appointees as party respondents. In any event, the appointments so made is not the subject-matter of challenge in the present batch of cases. In any event, the appointments so made is not the subject-matter of challenge in the present batch of cases. As regards the contention that the 4(four) selectees impleaded in WP(C) 848/2016 have been so made in representative capacity, the issue to be decided is as to whether any pleadings have come on record that irregularities and mischief in the selection had been so widespread and all-pervasive, thereby affecting the result which made it difficult to pick out the selectees who have unlawfully benefitted by wrongfully depriving the petitioners. There is utter absence of pleading of any gross irregularities, particularly as regards the written test. The 4(four) private respondents in WP(C) 848/2016 cannot be deemed to represent all the other 280 selectees/ appointees. 13. The judgment in Tanmoy Nath (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioners in view of the paragraph 127 thereof. To reiterate, appointments to the post of Supervisors have already been effected and such appointments are not the subject-matter of challenge in any of the writ petitions on ground that the same are the outcome of an illegal employment policy. 14. There is no apparent illegality or arbitrariness in the conduct of the selection process. There is no violation of any change in the rules of the game. Reliance placed in Subodh Chintey (supra) and in Madan Mohan Sharma (supra) are wholly out of context. 15. On behalf of the petitioner no.3 in WP(C) 848/2016, it is pleaded that despite having secured 43 marks in the written test as a candidate from Scheduled Tribe (Plains), she has been discriminated against and was not called for viva-voce test - the cut-off marks under the category being 31. First and foremost, the said pleading suffers from inherent contradiction, in as much as, on one hand challenge is made to the holding of written examination and, on the other, benefit out of the result of the written examination is sought for. Secondly, notwithstanding the challenge, the petitioner no.3, if at all aggrieved, ought to have endeavoured to seek remedy available under the law at the opportune moment and not sit back and wait until the entire selection and appointment procedure was over. No due diligence has been shown by the petitioner no.3. Equity cannot come to her aid at such a belated stage when she opted to sleep over her rights. 16. No due diligence has been shown by the petitioner no.3. Equity cannot come to her aid at such a belated stage when she opted to sleep over her rights. 16. The petitioners in both Category-A and Category-B are also estopped from challenging the selection process. Consistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, the petitioners having participated in the written examination and/or viva-voce without protest, only because the result of the written test and/or interview is not palatable to them, they cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. 17. For all the foregoing discussions and findings, all the writ petitions being devoid of merits, are accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 18. Interim orders stands recalled/vacated.