JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the selection of the respondents No. 4 & 5 in the post of Nurse under Tripura University pursuant to the Advertisement. No. TE/03/2013 dated 02.09.2013, AnnexureP5 to the writ petition and urged for direction on the Tripura University respondents to cancel their appointment. There is no dispute that by the said advertisement dated 02.09.2013 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for filling up two vacant posts (UR) of Nurse in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/with the Grade Pay Rs. 4200/for the Tripura University. The essential qualifications for the said post have been provided in the advertisement as under: Sl.12. Nurse, PB­2, Rs. 9,200/­34,800 +GP Rs. 4200/­, Age limits: 35 years 2 2­UR (i) Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or equivalent or B.Sc. Nursing from a recognize university/institution. (ii) Registered as Nurse in a State Nursing Council Register. 2. As the petitioner found herself eligible in terms of the advertisement dated 02.09.2013, she applied for the said post. She has acceded to the fact that she had participated in the ‘Written Test along with other candidates on 13.12.2014’. The result of the written test was published by the notification dated 10.03.2015, Annexure P/6 to the writ petition. In the said notification dated 10.03.2015, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 1, whereas the names of the respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively appear at Sl. No. 4 and 16 of the said notification. On the basis of the result of the written test, the petitioner was asked to appear on 10.04.2015 for interview by the same notification dated 10.03.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the viva voce but by the said process, the respondents No. 4 and 5 were finally selected for the post of Nurse. 3. The petitioner in that perspective has averred that the respondent No. 3 in collusion with the respondents No. 4 and 5 deprived the petitioner by selecting the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the post of nurse unfairly. “On the basis of marks in the vivavoce the petitioner cannot be deprived in selection and the respondents No. 4 & 5 cannot be selected basing in the marks of viva voce. “On the basis of marks in the vivavoce the petitioner cannot be deprived in selection and the respondents No. 4 & 5 cannot be selected basing in the marks of viva voce. The process of selection should not have been made on the basis of oral interviews in such a manner that the person who secured the 1st position in the written examinations deprived and the person who secured interior position in the written test in selected. The State Respondents have taken illegal and wrong process to select the Respondents No. 4 & 5 who are men of their liking, no undue favour can be given to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 taking the marks of oral test with a view to deprive the petitioner who has done outstanding result in the process of selection on the basis of written interview. In the case in hand bias, mala fide and arbitrariness has been shown the Respondents No. 4 & 5. And hence the appointment letter issued In favour of respondents No. 4 & 5 is liable to be quashed”. 4. The petitioner has also averred that the petitioners academic career is far more illustrious than that of the respondents No. 4 and 5, as according to the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the Master degree. In the paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the grounds of objections in respect of the mode of selection. According to her the process of selection should not have been made on the basis of the oral interview inasmuch as, by the outcome of the said oral interview, the person like the petitioner who secured the top position in the written test has been discarded. It is a clear example of undue favour to the respondents No. 4 and 5. Thus, the entire selection process has been visited by bias, mala fide and arbitrariness. 5. In the paragraph 19 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred very specifically as under: “19. That the interview Board acted mala fide in selecting the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 and thus the selection of respondent No. 4 & 5 shall be liable to be struck down”. 6. Despite such serious allegations made against the Interview Board the members of the Interview Board have not been added in the array of the parties in the proceeding. 6. Despite such serious allegations made against the Interview Board the members of the Interview Board have not been added in the array of the parties in the proceeding. The petitioner, as is evident, has made a comparative assessment of the qualification and experience of her own. As such, before we proceed further it would be apposite to lay the qualification and experience of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 & 5 in a tabular form. Name of the petitioners/ The Pvt. respondents Madhyamik Examination H.S.(+2) Examination B. Sc Nursing M.Sc. Nursing Remarks 1. Smt. Mousumi Debnath, The petitioner 2. Smt. Purabi Das, respondent No. 4 1st Division, in the year 1993 1st Division, in the year 1995 1s t Division, in the year 2003 Passed in the year 2009 Registered with Tripura Nursing Council on 26.04.2004 1s t Division, in the year 1997 1st Division, in the year 1999 1st Division, in the year 2004 In the year 2009 Registered with Tripura Nursing Council on 26.04.2005, worked as staff nurse at Escort Heart institute Research New Delhi from 22.09.2004 to 13.03.2005. Worked as sister In­ charge (Staff nurse) at Tripura Medical College Hospital, Agartala. From 05.05.2005 to 14.05.2005. Worked as lecturer at Tripura College of Nursing, Agartala from 20.06.2009 to 18.08.2011, worked as Principal In­ charge for B. Sc Nursing in Institute of Paramedical Science, Hapania, from 22.08.2011 to 05.08.2015­ Principal for AMM Program. 3. Smt. Saptamita Chakraborty, the respondent No. 5 1st Division, in the year 2002 1st Division, in the year 2004 1st Division, Registered with Tripura Nursing Council on 26.04.2009, worked as staff nurse at in the Tripura Medical College in 2009 also worked on deputation in Tripura College Nursing. Thus, the essential qualifications of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 and 5 are at par. But the respondents No. 4 and 5 have the working experience in the various capacities as noted under the remarks column above. 7. Though the petitioner has filed a rejoinder in respect of the reply filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5, but she did not dispute any of such qualifications and experience claimed by those respondents. She has only added that she had experience of ‘independent research work’. Thus, according to her ‘the respondents No. 4 and 5 are inferior in merit’. 8. She has only added that she had experience of ‘independent research work’. Thus, according to her ‘the respondents No. 4 and 5 are inferior in merit’. 8. In the reply, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have clearly stated that the said advertisement dated 02.09.2013 postulated the requisite essential qualification for the post of Nurse (GroupB) in terms of the Recruitment Rules which was published by the Tripura University under Notification No. F.TU/REG/CRR/NT/01/2010 dated 28.12.2011 at page 12 of the reply by the respondents No. 2 and 3]. The Recruitment Rules provides that the post of Nurse be filled up by direct recruitment from the persons within the maximum age limit of 35 years and having the following educational and other qualifications as prescribed by Rule 8 of the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Nurse under Tripura University. 8. Educational and other qualifications (i) Diploma in General Nursing and required for direct recruits Midwifery or equivalent or B.Sc. Nursing from a recognized university/institution. (ii) Registered as Nurse in a State Nursing Council register. 9. That apart, Rule 13 of the said Recruitment Rules provides the composition of DPC or the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee is to be constituted as per prescription by Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-teaching Employees), 2011. For purpose of reference, the composition of the Selection Committee in terms of the said Recruitment Rules see Appendix 1 to the said Recruitments rules] is as follows: (B) Selection Committees for the posts of Group ‘B’ & ‘C’ 1. Pro­-Vice­-Chancellor or a Dean or a Senior Professor nominated by the Vice Chancellor Chairman 2. Two experts not in service of this University to be nominated by the Vice­-Chancellor for their special knowledge Member 3. A member representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differentabled categories to be nominated by the Vice­-Chancellor or Acting Vice­-Chancellor, if any of the candidates representing these categories is the applicant and if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category. Member 4. Head of the Department concerned Member 5. Registrar (Member­Secretary) 10. In their reply the respondents No. 2 and 3 have categorically averred that on scrutiny of 246 applications for the said post, only 203 candidates were found eligible including the petitioner for the post of Nurse. Member 4. Head of the Department concerned Member 5. Registrar (Member­Secretary) 10. In their reply the respondents No. 2 and 3 have categorically averred that on scrutiny of 246 applications for the said post, only 203 candidates were found eligible including the petitioner for the post of Nurse. Thereafter those respondents have asserted as under: “(d) As the number of eligible candidates was high, with a view to limit the number of appearing interview the Screening Committee recommended for short listing of the candidates through Written Test and accordingly the said test was conducted on 13.12.2014 in which 148(one hundred & forty eight) candidates including the petitioner appeared for the written test. (e) Based on the marks secured by the candidates in the written test, the Screening Committee shortlisted 23(twenty three) candidates by way of percentile basis and were recommended to be call for the interview. Accordingly, the list was prepared and published on 10.03.2015 with announcement that an interview will be held on 04.04.2015 and interview call letters were issued and dispatched accordingly. The copy of the said short listed candidates annexed to with the writ petition as AnnexureP/6. (f) The interview was conducted on 04.04.2015 by the Selection Committee constituted by the University in accordance with the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching), 2011. The said Selection Committee comprised of 5(five) Members with Pro-Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, Registrar as Member-Secretary with 2(two0 experts not in service of the University and 1(one) Medical Officer of Tripura University as Head of the Department. (g) Out of short listed 23(twenty three) candidates 20 (twenty) candidates appeared in the interview. The Selection Committee on the basis of interview prepared a panel of 6(six) candidates in order of merit based on performances in the interview. Each of the 5(five) members of the Selection Committee had given marks on their own assessment to each candidates out of total 100 marks and on the basis of average the performance sheet was prepared. From that sheet in order of merit names of 6(six) candidates was recommended by the Selection Committee for consideration. (h) The Executive Council of the Tripura University approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and ordered for appointment of first 2(two candidates of the said panel (i.e. the Respondents No. 4 & 5) of the instant writ petition). Accordingly, the University issued the offer of appointment. (h) The Executive Council of the Tripura University approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and ordered for appointment of first 2(two candidates of the said panel (i.e. the Respondents No. 4 & 5) of the instant writ petition). Accordingly, the University issued the offer of appointment. Persons appointed accepted the offer and joined the posts.” 11. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have also asserted in their reply that the screening test was only for purpose of short listing the candidates. The marks of the written examination, which was adopted for screening, was not considered for any other purpose. The final selection was made on the basis of the interview from the short listed candidates. In the interview, the individual member of the Selection Committee have made their assessment and the final select panel was prepared on the average, made out of the aggregate. Thus, the respondents No. 2 and 3 denied any room for unfair means. The petitioner’s suspicion cannot be a ground for questioning the selection process. Those respondents have finally questioned the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that whether the petitioner can challenge by the selection process doing turn around when she found that the process where she had consciously participated did not finally select her. The respondents No. 2 and 3 therefore had raised the jurisprudential objection that the petitioner had waved her right to question the said selection process. 12. True it is that in the advertisement dated 02.09.2013 Annexure P3 the following conditions were accommodated under the general instructions to the candidates: “(xvii) Short listing of the applicants if necessary, shall be made by written test, academic records or higher educational qualifications”. 13. By the order dated 18.02.2016 the respondents No. 2 and 3 were directed by this Court to produce the selection records and the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employs), 2011. The similar order was renewed on 23.02.2016. Finally on 25.02.2016 the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed those records but this Court had directed the respondent No. 2 further in the following terms: “In this regard, the University shall file an affidavit and also produce the ‘individual interviewers’ score sheets with that affidavit, if those are available. This affidavit shall be filed by 10.03.2016 when the matter would be further heard.” 14. This affidavit shall be filed by 10.03.2016 when the matter would be further heard.” 14. Having series of accommodations provided to the respondent No. 2 and 3, those respondents filed the affidavit as asked for the records. In the said affidavit, those respondents have averred that all the members of the Selection Committee awarded separate marks to each candidates based on their overall performance in the interview against 100 marks. As a measure of abundant caution, this Court has scrutinized those records and found the averments made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 are absolutely correct as in the records, there are 5 individual sheets denoting the performance based score by the individual members of the Selection Committee. Thereafter, those marks were aggregated and averaged for deducing the select panel. 15. Thereafter, on the tabulated assessment sheet all the members of the Selection Committee panel put their signatures on verification. The select panel contains 6 names including names of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 and 5. Only for purpose of reference the select panel as recommended by the select committee for the post of nurse (UR category, two posts) with the marks, against each of those candidates is reproduced below: 1. Smt. Purabi Das 75.8 2. Smt. Saptamita Chakraborty 74 3. Smt. Mousumi Debnath 71.4 4. Smt. Barnali Sinha 67.8 5. Sri Sankar Deb 64 6. Sri Refal Debnath 62.4 16. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has quite strenuously argued that there was no division of marks for the written test and the viva voce. Even there was no declaration that there would be viva voce for purpose of selection at any point of time. He has further submitted that even no marks from the written test was added to the viva voce and for adopting such arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable process the petitioner has been eliminated though she secured the top merit position in the written test. 17. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Apex Court in Rashmi Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and Ors, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 74 where the Apex Court on considering its earlier decisions viz Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 , Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 , Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,reported in 1985 4SCC 417, State of U.P V. Rafiquddin and Others reported 1987 Supp. SCC 401, Jasvinder Singh and Others v. State of J & K and Others. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 132 , Vijay Syal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others reported (2003) 9 SCC 401 , K. H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 , Sardara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 555 , has observed as under: “The post requires no professional experience. What was required to be seen was academic qualification, experience and other abilities of the candidate. Whereas the ability of communication and other skills may have to be judge through interview, experience of the candidate as also the marks obtained by him in the written examination could not have been ignored. It is not that the Commission was not called upon to hold a written examination. The Rules enabled the Commission to do so. Such a written examination in fact was held. However, the same was held only for the purpose of short listing the candidates and not for any other purpose. It was not a fair exercise of power. The marks obtained by the candidates in the said written examination should have been taken into consideration. Evidently, the Commission did not do so. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we would direct the State of Madhya Pradesh therefore to consider the desirability of amending the Rules suitably so that such charges of favoritism or nepotism by the members of the constitutional authority in future are not called in question.” Emphasis added] 18. Mr. Bhowmik learned counsel has also placed reliance separately on Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Harayanan reported (1995) 4 SCC 417 where the Apex Court has expressed its serious reservation about the viva voce test. According the Apex Court as high a percentage of marks as in the viva voce, the test render the selection process arbitrary. The following part of the Para 26 of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) has been highlighted by Mr. According the Apex Court as high a percentage of marks as in the viva voce, the test render the selection process arbitrary. The following part of the Para 26 of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) has been highlighted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: “The spread of marks in the viva voce test being enormously large compared to the spread of marks in the written examination, the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process, because even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily knocked out of the race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the viva voce test. It is therefore obvious that the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced. But while considering what percentage of marks may legitimately be allocated for the viva voce test without incurring the reproach of arbitrariness, it must be remembered that exservice officers would ordinarily be middleaged persons of mature personality and it would be hard on them at that age to go through a long written examination involving 8 subjects and hence it would not be unfair to require them to go through a shorter written examination in only 5 subjects and submit to a viva voce test carrying a higher percentage of marks than what might be prescribed in case of younger candidates. The personalities of theses exservice officers being fully mature and developed, it would not be difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of their merits on the basis of searching and incisive viva voce test and therefore in their case, he viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3%.” 19. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has supplemented by contending that the elimination of the petitioner has its root in not basing the composite marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination and the oral interview. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3%.” 19. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has supplemented by contending that the elimination of the petitioner has its root in not basing the composite marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination and the oral interview. This process has been censured by the Apex Court in Tridip Kr. Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768 where was a case of elimination test by means of written examination for purpose of short listing from the huge number of candidates and thereafter, selecting the candidates wholly on the basis of viva voce, the Apex Court had in that context occasion to observe as under: “39. It has also come on record that the administrative decision had been taken by the State to take ‘elimination test’ to “shortlist” huge number of candidates. It is further clear that the plea to that effect was raised by the State in the first round of litigation before the first authority viz. the Tribunal itself. But in view of the fact that in that round of litigation, the Tribunal held the action of the State authorities to be wrong and the High Court upheld it and the State did not challenge the order in this Court, in our opinion, the High Court in the second round, did not commit any error of law in directing the authorities to prepare merit list on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in written examination as also in oral interview. It was not open to the State authorities to reiterate and reagitate in the second round, the same ground, that written examination was in the nature of “elimination test” and it was limited to “shortlisting” of candidates and marks obtained by candidates at the written examination could not be considered for preparation of merit list. The said stage had already gone and the decision in the first round had attained finality so far as the nature of written examination was concerned. The said stage had already gone and the decision in the first round had attained finality so far as the nature of written examination was concerned. The Tribunal and the High Court were, therefore, right in holding in the second round that the merit list was required to be compared on the basis of composite marks obtained by candidates at the written examination and oral interview both and not only on the basis of marks at the oral interview.” Emphasis added] 20. Even though Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 521, this decision does not have any relevance in the present context, inasmuch as this is not a case where selection is based on the written examination and viva voce having minimum cut off marks. According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel the selection procedure cannot be entirely based on viva voce, as such process opens up the door for arbitrariness, favouritism and uncalibrated subjectivism and thus, the selection might become unfair. His further contention is that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test for short listing should have been added. But the respondents No. 2 and 3 leaving the fairness procedure at large, selected the respondents No. 4 and 5 based on their performance in the viva voce. 21. Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 have in unison submitted that the selection process has been followed in terms of the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules, (Non-Teaching Employees) 2011 approved by the Executive Counsel in its 16th meeting held on 26th November 2011 in accordance with the provision laid down in Statutes 24(2) and 41 (1) (a) of the Statutes under the Tripura University Act, 2006. Even the Recruitments Rules has adopted the said Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees) 2011 for purpose of having the Selection Committee under Rule 13 of the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules for the post of Nurse. 22. No other procedure has been provided in the Recruitment Rules save and except providing the Selection Committee in the form as reproduced above. Mr. 22. No other procedure has been provided in the Recruitment Rules save and except providing the Selection Committee in the form as reproduced above. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has categorically stated that the process described in the Recruitment Rule is not required to be adverted. He has referred Rule 6 (v) of the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (NonTeaching Employees 2011) which provides inter alia that every appointment through direct recruitment/open selection shall invariably be made only after making an advertisement in leading news paper and employment news. In the advertisement, it has been clearly provided that the prescribed qualification and experience are minimum and the mere possession of the same will not entitle a candidates for being called for interview. 23. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has clearly stated that short listing of the candidate if necessary shall be made by the written test, academic records or higher educational qualification. Thus, nothing was suppressed in respect of the process of the selection and knowing full well the petitioner had participated in the process and when she found that outcome of the process was not palatable to her, she made turn around and filed the present writ petition. 24. Even though there is general allegations of bias etc., but such allegations may not be entertained by this Court, as none of the members of the Selection Committee has been added in the array of the parties. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that on scrutiny of the record, it would clearly transpire that there was no manipulation at all. The integrity of the process was scrupulously maintained by the respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court to buttress his contention. In Ramesh Ch. Shah and Others. v. Anil Joshi and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613 the Apex Court has observed as under: “21. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986) Supp. SCC 285 ( AIR 1986 SC 1043 ), a three Judge Bench ruled that when the petitioner appeared in the examination without protest, he was not entitled to challenge the result of the examination. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986) Supp. SCC 285 ( AIR 1986 SC 1043 ), a three Judge Bench ruled that when the petitioner appeared in the examination without protest, he was not entitled to challenge the result of the examination. The same view was reiterated in Madan Lal v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 : ( AIR 1995 SC 1088 : 1995 AIR SCW 1109) in the following words: 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. 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. In the case of OM Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Beach of three learned Judges of this 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. 22. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.” 23. The doctrine of waiver was also invoked in Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others (2011) 1 SCC 150 and it was held: When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must process the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the af9oresaid procedure adopt was wrong and without jurisdiction.” 24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.” Emphasis added] 25. Mr. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has stated further that the petitioner waived her right by her participation in the entire process to question the methodology adopted by the Selection Committee for making selection. Thus, the writ petition should be axed without any further consideration. 26. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has emphatically submitted that Para 39 of Tridip Kr. Dingal does not lay down any legal principle, it only lays down impact of estoppel that context. The legal principles have been laid down in Tridip Kr Dingal in the following paragraphs: “15. It was also contended by the counsel for the State that since posts which were to be filled in were very limited (80) and large number of candidates applied (approximately 4000 candidates), the State authorities had no alternative but to screen candidates by holding written examination. Such a “screening test” was perfectly legal, valid and it could not have been objected. In other words, according to the State, written examination was in the nature of “elimination test”. 16. So far as oral interview was concerned, it was submitted that the selection Committee was consisting of highranking officials who acted impartially, objectively and without malice. The allegation that the members of the Selection Committee were instrumental in the matter of selection of their close relations was totally baseless. Aggrieved candidates could not give any name of the alleged close relatives of the members of the Selection Committee. It was, therefore, submitted that the action of the State was wholly legal and valid. 17. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions of the parties and observed that as against recruitment of 80 Medical Technologists, about 4000 candidates offered their respective candidature for appointment. It was san unprecedented and perplexing situation. In the absence of recruitment rules, an administrative decision was taken by the Government for screening unsuccessful candidates by holding written test which was legal and proper. About 2500 candidates appeared at the written test out of 4000 applicants and a list was prepared eliminating those candidates who had obtained less than qualifying marks (40%) at the written examination. Since the object of the test was only to oust huge number of unsuccessful candidates, there was no illegality in undertaking the said exercise. About 2500 candidates appeared at the written test out of 4000 applicants and a list was prepared eliminating those candidates who had obtained less than qualifying marks (40%) at the written examination. Since the object of the test was only to oust huge number of unsuccessful candidates, there was no illegality in undertaking the said exercise. A final list of eligible and qualified candidates was prepared, who were called for oral interview. According to the Tribunal, the purpose of written test was only to eliminate huge number of unsuccessful candidates and it was not a case of selection based on written examination and oral interview. There was no question of “pick and choose” or showing discrimination as alleged.” Emphasis added] 27. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and scrutinized the records as produced by the respondents No. 2 and 3 this Court is confronted with two fundamental questions viz (i) whether the selection process as pursued by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in selecting the respondents No. 4 and 5 for appointment for the post of nurse is sustainable and (ii) whether the petitioner can challenge the said selection process after her full participation and knowing its outcome which was not favourable to her? 28. Before we embark to meet those fundamental questions we may revisit the very object of any process of selection for entry into a public service. The object is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. The selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gate way to public services. The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness. In the open process, any qualified person may come forward, his competence is determined by a neutral and disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidates. No one has ‘pull’, everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern. The same is used to test competence. No one has ‘pull’, everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic, is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern. The same is used to test competence. The Kothari Committee on recruitment policy and selection matters in their report has observed as under: “A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person’s academic knowledge and skills, as distinct from ality to deal with pressing problems of economic and social development, with people, and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today, much less of tomorrow…..we venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who can not only assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems.” 29. In the case in hand, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have clearly adverted the process of selection in the advertisement dated 02.09.2013, Annexure P/5 to the writ petition. as reproduced above. It is clear from the said advertisement by interview selection of suitable candidates would be made for appointment to the post of nurse and if it is found that there was huge response big number of candidates, the respondents No. 2 and 3 would follow an exercise of short listing of the candidates by the written test. 30. Not only in Ramesh Ch. Shah (supra) the said process has been approved by the Apex Court also in M. P. Public Service Commission v. Navanit Kumar Potder and Another reported in (1994) 6 SCC 293 . The Apex Court had occasion to observe there that the short listing which is adopted to recruit the best candidates on rational and reasonable basis is permissible under law. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in Jogesh Yadav v. Union of India and Others judgment dated 16.08.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 6799 of 2013]. There is no controversy that the petitioner knowing the said process had participated and when she found that the outcome of the said process is not palatable to her she has challenged the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5. Whether the petitioner had still possessed the locus to challenge the said selection? 31. In Dr. There is no controversy that the petitioner knowing the said process had participated and when she found that the outcome of the said process is not palatable to her she has challenged the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5. Whether the petitioner had still possessed the locus to challenge the said selection? 31. In Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 , Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in (1986) Supp. SCC 285, Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 and in Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 and in many other subsequent decisions the Apex Court has succinctly held that having knowledge of the process, duly adverted, when a candidate participated in the process without protest and when he found that he would not succeed and thereafter, challenge the very selection process, no relief in favour of such person can be granted. In Madanlal v. State of J&K, 1995(3) SCC 486 the Apex Court has enunciated the principle under: “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 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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986 Supp. SCC 285) it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this 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.” Emphasis added] 32. Thus, the objection raised by the respondents No. 2 and 3 succeeds and no relief against the challenge in respect of the process can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 33. The other feature that we are concerned with is that the petitioner even has not challenged the Recruitments Rules for the post of Nurse particularly when the Rule 13 adopts the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees) 2011. The said rule clearly provides the constitution of the Selection Committee for selecting the candidates. 33. The other feature that we are concerned with is that the petitioner even has not challenged the Recruitments Rules for the post of Nurse particularly when the Rule 13 adopts the Tripura University Cadre Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees) 2011. The said rule clearly provides the constitution of the Selection Committee for selecting the candidates. In term of the Appendix of the said rules the Selection Committee, as noticed from the records and the reply filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, was constituted by 5 eminent persons and the high ranking officers of the university. Their integrity or competence has not been challenged by the petitioner. Moreover, this Court is not suppose to act as the Court of appeal over the assessment of such an expert committee. If the process as provided by the statute and the validity of the statute is not under challenge, this Court even cannot exercise its power under the judicial review. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 the Apex Court has observed as under: “Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction of their observation. As already observed by us the weight to be given to the requirement of the service to which requirement is made, the sourcematerial available for recruitment, the composition of the interview Board and several like factors. Ordinarily recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and we would be usurping a function which is not ours if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests. If we do that we would be rewriting the Rules but we guard ourselves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. There is none in the present case.” Emphasis added] 34. What is adverted for the petitioner further in terms of Tridip Kr. Dingla (supra) is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 was under obligation to tabulate the composite marks for determining the comparative merit of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Apex Court did not lay any legal principle, but analyzed the principle of estoppels in the context of that case. Dingla (supra) is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 was under obligation to tabulate the composite marks for determining the comparative merit of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Apex Court did not lay any legal principle, but analyzed the principle of estoppels in the context of that case. Moreover, this is not a case where the Recruitment Rules provides both for written test and the viva voce and as such distribution of marks between these two segment and achieving the balance for fair assessment is not very relevant and as such this Court would not embark on that aspect of the matter what has been strenuously argued by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 35. In the result, the writ petition is bound to fail and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, before parting with the records this Court is persuaded to note that a candidate who participated in the selection process throughout without protest cannot turn round and challenge the process on the ground that his/her merit has been ignored by the Interview Committee and the candidates possessing less merit have been selected. There is no bar which prohibits candidates who participated in the selection to challenge the legal validity of the selection process etc. where the selection is made in violation of the fundamental rights or express provisions of the statue, even unsuccessful candidates cannot be asked to wait for selection till appointments are made. Even in the case of Madanlal (supra) the challenge was thrown against the selection process itself. In this case, though the challenge is projected on the foundation of violation of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution but the foundation of challenge itself has been frittered away. The records as produced by the respondents No. 4 and 5 are returned. There shall be no order as to costs.