JUDGMENT AND ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the BTC and Mr. P. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 20 in WP(C) No. 3623/2015. 2. Both the writ petitions having identical facts and challenge being made to the selection list dated 04.06.2015 in both the writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The Central Selection Board, Bodoland Tribal council, Kokrajhar issued an advertisement calling for applications for filling up 24 numbers of vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector under Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in BTC area. The recruitment test was for a total marks of 100 out of which 70 marks were allotted for the written test and 30 marks for viva voce test respectively. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector and appeared in the written test which was held on 11.01.2015. After being successful in the written test, the petitioner appeared for the viva voce test which was held on 13.03.2015. The select list was thereafter published on 04.06.2015 declaring 24 roll numbers of successful candidates. In the said select list dated 04.06.2015, the petitioner's roll number did not appear and therefore being aggrieved the writ petitions were filed challenging the select list. 4. Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.3623/2015 challenging the select list dated 04.06.2015 by taking a ground that two roll numbers declared as selected in the Merit List namely, No. 952 and No.2916 does not figure in the list of successful candidates who had passed the written test. However, the petitioner came to learn that a corrigendum has been issued by the CSP, BTC including the roll numbers of 6 other candidates to have passed the written test, wherein, the aforesaid 2 roll numbers were also included. In that view of the matter, the petitioner had again filed WP(C) No. 4318/2015. 5. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved with the merit list/select list, the petitioner had filed an RTI application on 12.06.2015 requesting for information pertaining to the results of the selection process of the recruitment test pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.11.2014. 5. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved with the merit list/select list, the petitioner had filed an RTI application on 12.06.2015 requesting for information pertaining to the results of the selection process of the recruitment test pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.11.2014. On receipt of the reply, the petitioner came to learn that he had scored 53 marks out of 70 in the written test. However, the petitioner was allotted only 13 marks out of the total 30 marks in the oral/viva voce test. It is submitted that other selected candidates were given marks ranging from 19 to 21 in the viva voce test and thereby allowing them to take a march over the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner had scored the highest mark of 53 in the written test. He therefore submits that when the petitioner could get 53 marks in the written test, allotting of only 13 marks in the viva voce test was intentionally done to accommodate some of the selected candidates. It is also submitted that the petitioner had performed very well in the viva voce test by answering all the questions put to him. Therefore allotting only 13 marks in the viva voce test is highly questionable. He therefore submits that the merit list/select list prepared by the CSP, BTC is unfair and has been done in an injudicious manner and therefore, the impugned merit/select list dated 04.06.2015 should be set aside and the respondents should be directed to conduct a fresh viva voce test. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, BTC on the other hand submits that the writ petitioner has participated in the selection process and he has challenged the select list only after coming to know that he has not been successful. The same is an afterthought and also is not permissible in the eye of law. He submits that the petitioner has scored 53 marks in the written test and 13 marks in viva voce test, totalling to 66 marks, whereas, the other selected 24 candidates has total marks ranging between 70 to 74. The same would clearly indicate that the petitioner was far behind the selected candidates and as a result his Roll Number did not appear in the select/merit list. The same would clearly indicate that the petitioner was far behind the selected candidates and as a result his Roll Number did not appear in the select/merit list. Therefore the petitioner cannot challenge the select list at this stage only on the sole ground that since he had scored 53 marks in the written test, the petitioner should have got more marks in the viva voce test. The whole process was conducted in a transparent manner and the writ petitioner having subjected himself to the selection process without any objections, cannot turn round and challenge the select list at this stage. He, therefore, submits that the law being already settled in this respect, the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Mr. P. Paul, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 6 to 20 in WP(C) No. 3623/2015 while adopting the submissions made by the learned standing counsel, BTC further submits that the petitioner did not raise any objection while appearing in the selection process and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to turn round and question the correctness of the marks given in the viva voce test. He also submits that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority on the marking given to the candidates by the selection committee as the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only after being informed that his name did not figure in the merit list. The conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and therefore, this Court should not entertain the writ petition. 8. I have considered the submission forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the BTC has also produced the original scoring sheets of the viva voce test for the post of Sub-Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department. The records contain the score sheets of 38 candidates including that of the petitioner who had appeared in the viva voce test. On consideration of the Score Sheets, this Court does not detect any discrepancies in the marks allotted to the candidates by the Interview Board. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that lesser marks have been allotted to the petitioner in order to accommodate other selected candidates and that there may be interpolation in the marks awarded to the candidates has also been considered by this Court. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that lesser marks have been allotted to the petitioner in order to accommodate other selected candidates and that there may be interpolation in the marks awarded to the candidates has also been considered by this Court. A close scrutiny of the Score sheets of the selected candidates and that of the petitioner in the viva voce sheet speaks otherwise. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands negated. 10. After the advertisement dated 12.11.2014 for the 24 vacancies of Sub-Inspector under the Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in BTC area was published, the petitioner had participated in the select process. There is no doubt that the petitioner had obtained 53 marks out of the total 70 marks in the written test. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the viva voce test and had filed the writ petitions only because he did not find himself in the merit list/select list. The petitioner had taken a chance to get himself selected in the said viva voce test. It is now a settled position of law that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears in the interview/viva voce and only because the result of the interview is not acceptable to him, he cannot turn round and contend that the process of interview was unfair. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to successfully challenge the merit list after he has taken a chance to get selected in the said viva voce test and ultimately is not successful. This Court cannot sit on an appeal and reassess the relative merits of the candidates who had appeared in the viva voce test nor can the petitioner urge that he has been given less marks though his performance was good. This Court, is therefore of the considered opinion that it is for the interview board to assess the realitive merits of the candidates who had appeared in the viva voce test. 11. In the case of Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. Reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "In the light of what is stated above, while dealing with contention no. 1, this contention also must fail. 11. In the case of Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. Reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "In the light of what is stated above, while dealing with contention no. 1, this contention also must fail. The petitioners subjectively feel that as they had fared better in the written test and had got more marks-therein as compared to the selected respondents concerned, they should have been given more marks also at the oral interview. But that is in the realm of assessment of relative merits of concerned candidates by the expert committee before whom these candidates appeared for the viva voce test. Merely on the basis of petitioners apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual basis. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias of the members of the interview committee against the petitioner. They have also not alleged any mala fides on the part of the interview committee in this connection. Consequently, the attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to decide whether more marks should be assigned to the petitioners or to the respondents concerned. It cannot be the subject matter of an attack before us as we are not sitting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by the committee so far as the candidates interviewed by them are concerned. In the light of the affidavit in reply filed by Dr. Girija Dhar to which we have made reference earlier, it cannot be said that the expert committee had given a deliberate unfavorable treatment to the petitioners. Consequently, this contention also is found to be devoid of any merit and is rejected." 12. Again in the case of H.C. Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. Girija Dhar to which we have made reference earlier, it cannot be said that the expert committee had given a deliberate unfavorable treatment to the petitioners. Consequently, this contention also is found to be devoid of any merit and is rejected." 12. Again in the case of H.C. Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. Reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and Challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted." 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also on consideration of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect, there is no merit in these writ petitions and are accordingly dismissed. No cost. 14. The interim order dated 20.06.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3623/2015 stands vacated.