ORDER : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for appropriate writ to set aside the select/waiting list of the in-service candidates for PG Super Speciality Entrance Test-2016 and he has also prayed to direct respondent No. 1 to consider his representation dated 05.08.2016, Annexure 'F' to the petition, by allotting additional 5 marks towards service weightage for completion of seven years of in-service. The petitioner has further prayed to issue appropriate writ to direct respondent No. 2 to consider his representation, Annexure 'G' to the petition, by allotting additional 8 marks towards the service weightage, journal publication and service rendered by him in the recognized University as a Senior Resident. 2. We have heard Mr.R. Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. As such, the marks sheet produced at Annexure 'E' by the petitioner itself shows that consolidated marks obtained by him was 61.50, whereas respondent No. 3 has secured 68.50 marks in respect of the subject 'M.Ch Surgical Gastroenterology'. Therefore, merit as per the expert body is lower of the petitioner in comparison to respondent No. 3 and there is difference of about 7 marks. 4. The attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner was mainly two-fold. One was that in viva voce, petitioner has been awarded 4.5 marks and there is no clarity as to whether it is out of 10 marks reserved for viva or out of 5. He submitted that as per clause No. 9 of the Brochure pertaining to distribution of marks for viva voce, pattern for allotment of marks is provided and as per him, marks are not allotted to the petitioner correctly. Hence, this Court may interfere. 5. Clause No. 9 of the brochure, in our view, is clear and provides for distribution of marks for viva voce under five different heads. For allotment of 5 marks, various achievements of a candidate viz., receiving of University level Gold medal/securing 1st rank in Undergraduate/Postgraduate courses; publication of research articles; award winning paper presentation in parent/allied subjects and national/international representation in sports/Military service etc., are taken into consideration by the expert body and another 5 marks are allotted based on the candidate's performance in viva voce. Thus, total marks is 10. Thus, total marks is 10. Out of 10 marks, when the petitioner is given 4.5 marks in viva, it cannot be said that interference is called for because there is no clarity in the mind of the petitioner as to whether he has been given 4.5 out of 10 marks or out of 5. The select/waiting list and the marking pattern, in our view, is clear. It goes to show that out of 10 marks reserved for viva, 4.5 marks are allotted to the petitioner. When the body of experts after consideration of academic records including the achievements, if any, and the performance of the petitioner in viva voce has allotted 4.5 marks, this Court cannot exercise the power as that of the Appellate Authority and no judicial review is available to the said marking pattern already adopted by the expert body in preparing the select/waiting list. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said marking pattern is incorrect and arbitrary, cannot be accepted. 6. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner has completed 7 years 10 months and 9 days i.e., roughly about 7 years service and he has been assigned 2 marks for the service weightage, whereas respondent No. 3, who has completed 15 years 02 months 12 days i.e., roughly about 15 years service, has been given weightage of 10 marks. He, therefore, submitted that there is arbitrariness in giving weightage for service period. 7. In our view, as such what weightage is to be given to the service period is a decision of the expert body, where the Court will not exercise the power as that of the Appellate Authority and no judicial review is available to the petitioner against marks assigned by way of weightage. Further, even if the contention is considered for the sake of examination that marks allotted in respect of weightage should have been proportionate to the service period, then also, since the petitioner had completed 7 years of service and on the proportionality basis, he at the most can be considered as entitled for additional three marks and if three marks are added to total 61.50, it would be 64.50, which in any case, would be less than 68.50 secured by respondent No. 3. Under the circumstances, we find that no useful purpose would be served by examining the contentions as sought to be canvassed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made last lame attempt to contend that the practice of giving weightage to the candidate for the period of service is itself unconstitutional and he may be permitted to challenge the validity of sub-clause (iii) of Clause 10 of the Brochure, which provides for the weightage to be given to the in-service candidates for the period of service. 9. In our view, the second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is on an ingenuine premise for the simple reason that the petitioner in the petition is pressing for the higher marking on the basis of his seven years in service and now when he found that this is not going to be helpful, alternative contention is raised to challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Rule pertaining to giving weightage for service period. Such, in our view, can be said as approbating and reprobating at the same time, which this Court would not permit while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any case, the petitioner has voluntarily accepted the Rule for giving weightage for the service period and he has also prayed in this petition for the consequential relief of allotment of higher marks by considering the proportionate weightage of his service period. Moreover, no prayer nor any ground is contended in the petition for challenging the constitutional validity of the Rule. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the challenge made by the petitioner to the validity of the Rule deserves to be entertained. 10. In view of the above, when the merit order of the petitioner is lower and would remain as lower in comparison to that of respondent No. 3 even if the contention is considered and examined, we do not find that any case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed.