JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This writ petition was taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself on the submission of learned counsel of both side. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. J. Majumder for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel Mr. T. Debbarma for respondent No.3 and learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for respondent Nos.4 to 21. 3. The petitioners and respondent No.4 to 21(hereinafter mentioned as, private respondents) were all members of Tripura Engineering Service(For short, TES) working as Junior Engineer(Civil)(Degree holder) in GrV(A). Tripura Engineering Service Rules prescribes provision for promotion to TES GrIV(Civil)(Assistant Engineer) from the post of Junior Engineer(Civil)(Degree holder) by direct recruitment from in service candidates. The Department requested Tripura Public Service Commission(for short, TPSC) for selection of candidates in accordance with the provisions of Combined Competitive Examinations Rules, 2009(for short, Rules of 2009) and to recommend a list of successful candidates to fill up 53 posts of Assistant Engineer, TES(GrIV)(Civil)(GrA Gazetted). 4. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued advertisement No.09/2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates. A copy of the advertisement marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition Important information contained in that advertisement, for ready reference is quoted, which reads as follows: “Important information: (i) The syllabus pattern of the said Competitive Examination will be same as that for Direct Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer, TES Grade-IV as per TES(4th Amendment) Rules, 2007. (ii) The Exam will be held for one time only. All eligible TES Grade V(A)(Civil)(Junior Engineer)(Degree Holder) under Public Works Department, Government of Tripura as mentioned above who are desirous of appearing at this Examination are requested to send Advance Copy of application in the prescribed form by the 12th May, 2015 during office hour. The application through proper channel should reach Commission’s Secretariat by 20th May, 2015 during office hour. Application received after the closing date will not be entertained in any case.” 5. The petitioners received programme for the examination to be held on 28.06.2015 and 29.06.2015 and accordingly they appeared in the examination. The examination was conducted, admittedly as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 2009 and that was the Rule of conducting such examination which was mentioned in the advertisement also. Rule 4(ii) prescribes that the candidates will be selected in order of merit. The examination was conducted, admittedly as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 2009 and that was the Rule of conducting such examination which was mentioned in the advertisement also. Rule 4(ii) prescribes that the candidates will be selected in order of merit. The provision reads as follows: “(ii) Selection of candidates will be made in order of merit and according to the number of vacancies available. Due consideration will be given, as far as practicable, to the preferences indicated by a candidate, if any, but the commission reserves the right to allot the candidate to any department or post for which he/she is a candidate on consideration of his/her candidature who has paid application fees as prescribed and fulfilled the terms of advertisement will receive Admit Card and a time table for the examination. The admission will be deemed to be provisional subject to determination of his eligibility in all respects, fitness and number vacancies available.” 6. Rule 11 prescribes the procedures in respect of the written part of the examination. Since it is very important to decide the writ petition, Rule 11, as a whole, is reproduced as follows: “11. Written part of the examination (i) The written part of the examination shall consist of 1(one) compulsory subjects and 2(two) optional papers which are as follows: A. Compulsory (a) General Studies 100 Marks 1 hour duration B. Optional(Any two of the following papers) 200 marks in each paper 3 hours duration (a) Civil Engineering paper—I (b) Civil engineering paper—II (c) Mechanical Engineering paper—I (d) Mechanical Engineering paper—II (e) Electrical Engineering paper—I (f) Electrical Engineering Paper—II (ii) As shown in the above table General Studies is compulsory for candidates of all Grades of the Service i.e. Grade IV, Grade V(A) and Grade V(B) and respective equivalent posts of other departments. Civil Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in civil Engineering Branch, Mechanical Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in Mechanical Engineering Branch and Electrical Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in Electrical Engineering Branch. Similar restriction shall apply to all similar ranking posts. (iii). Civil Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in civil Engineering Branch, Mechanical Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in Mechanical Engineering Branch and Electrical Engineering papers are compulsory for candidates who apply for posts in Electrical Engineering Branch. Similar restriction shall apply to all similar ranking posts. (iii). Detailed syllabus and groupwise break up of marks for each of the abovementioned subjects/papers for Grade IV, Grade V(A) and Grade V(B) and respective equivalent posts of other departments have been given in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III and Schedule IV respectively to these Rules. (iv). Qualifying marks for unreserved category shall be minimum 40% in each subject and that of reserve category shall be minimum 30% each subject. (v). In exceptional circumstances/categories, the Commission, at its discretion, shall fix the minimum qualifying marks for a paper and the minimum qualifying aggregate marks for all the papers otherwise; Provided that in case a candidate fails to secure the qualifying marks, so fixed in any paper compulsory or optional, marks in that paper shall not be considered for calculating the aggregate. (vi). Questions in all the papers shall be answered only in English and in no other language.” Since the petitioners and the private respondents were all of Civil Branch, they opted for Civil Engineering Paper I and Civil Engineering Paper II as per head note ‘B’ of Rule 11. 7. After the written test, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were called for the interview but petitioner No.3 was not called for interview. 8. Respondent No.3 recommended a list of 37(thirty seven) successful candidates to the State Government for their appointment and the names of the petitioners did not find place in that list. Felt aggrieved the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the examination was not conducted properly according to rules by respondent No.3 and the petitioners collected relevant materials through RTI and thereafter they could notice several illegalities in the conduct of examination and therefore challenged Notification dated 07.09.2015 issued by respondent No.3 in respect of the successful candidates. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the examination was not conducted properly according to rules by respondent No.3 and the petitioners collected relevant materials through RTI and thereafter they could notice several illegalities in the conduct of examination and therefore challenged Notification dated 07.09.2015 issued by respondent No.3 in respect of the successful candidates. The grounds of illegalities have been set forth by the petitioners in paragraphs 8(a) to 8(d) of the writ petition, which read as follows: “8(a) The said Examination Rules, under Rules 11 and 12 prescribe that such examination shall be held in two parts, one written the other oral or personality test. The written part comprises there papers viz. (1) General Studies with 100 marks(Compulsory) (2) Engineering Paper I and (3) Engineering Paper II, each of 200 marks(optional) and thereafter, a Personality Test/Interview for which the Commission would decide the pattern. Accordingly the Respondent 3 fixed 50 marks for Interview. Thus, one compulsory and two optional papers are the components of the written examination. It is sufficiently clear from Rule 11.B(iv) that in order to qualify in the written tests one must obtain the minimum qualifying marks in each subject, compulsory and optional, and those who would pass in the written test shall only be called for the Interview. But in the present case the TPSC deviated from this rule and called those also who did not qualify to obtain minimum qualifying marks in Compulsory subject(General Studies). This is evident from the documents obtained under RTI Act. (1). Shri Ajit Chakrabarty : failed in the compulsory subject, yet he was called for interview. But was not selected for direct appointment. (2) Shri Rajesh Saha : similarly failed in compulsory subject, yet called for Interview, but was not selected. (3) Shri Subrata Baidya : Failed in optional PaperI, but yet called for Interview. Not recommended. (4) Shri Nirmal Kanti paul : Failed in 2 papers and was not called for Interview. In all the cited cases the candidates obtained more than the aggregate(200). But Nirmal Kanti Paul was not called for the Interview. It is absolutely anomalous and in violation of the Rules. Copy of the Rules is annexed as Annexure 2, and the Documents obtained under RTI are annexed in support of the Petitioners’ contention above as Annexure 3 colly. 8(b). But Nirmal Kanti Paul was not called for the Interview. It is absolutely anomalous and in violation of the Rules. Copy of the Rules is annexed as Annexure 2, and the Documents obtained under RTI are annexed in support of the Petitioners’ contention above as Annexure 3 colly. 8(b). If interview was taken for those who did not pass in the written exams. In each subject then the aggregate total should have been the criteria for selection. But in that case Ajit Chakravarty and Shri Rajesh Saha scored total of 286 and 291 respectively, which marks are evidently higher than that of the marks of last four selected, who scored 288.5, 288, 285 and 282 respectively as may be observed from the List of recommended candidates published by Notification dated 17-9-2015. A copy of the said Notification dated 17-9-2015 is annexed as Annexure 4. 8(c). The Examination Rules nowhere explicitly or by implications authorizes the Commission to fix “negative marks” for wrong answers only in “General Studies” Paper, but not in the Engineering papers in which the candidates are expected to be experts. This would be evident from the Programme for the Departmental Examination issued by the Respondent 3. Such determination of procedure is not only anomalous but without authority of Rules. A copy of the said programme brought out by the TPSC is annexed as Annexure 5. 8.(d). The Commission by letter dated 30-11-2015 intimated the Petitioner No.3 that the selection has been done by applying the quoted provision of Rule 11(IV) and (V) which is seen to have introduced an alternative clause namely “Or qualifying aggregate marks : 200 for UR candidates and 150 marks for SC/ST/PH/EXSM candidates”, which is absent in the rules. It has not only violated the rules but also has vitiated the purpose of the Rules of 2009. Introduction of the alternative clause to Cl.(IV) of Rule 11 has resulted in incorrect and improper assessment of the ‘merit’ for which the examination is intended. Selection by such incorrect, unauthorized and improper standard has to be quashed. A copy of the letter No.F.13(1)/RTI/TPSC/ 2015/ 716 dated 30-11-2015 is annexed as Annexure 6. ” 10. The respondents contended that written examination was conducted following the procedures prescribed in the Rules of 2009 and there was no deviation from the rules. Selection by such incorrect, unauthorized and improper standard has to be quashed. A copy of the letter No.F.13(1)/RTI/TPSC/ 2015/ 716 dated 30-11-2015 is annexed as Annexure 6. ” 10. The respondents contended that written examination was conducted following the procedures prescribed in the Rules of 2009 and there was no deviation from the rules. The petitioners participated in the selection process, appeared in the examination on receipt of the programme and did not raise protest on any issue in respect of syllabus or manner of conducting the examination or on any other issue and when they came up unsuccessful they filed the present writ petition out of frustration having no merit at all. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas at the very outset submitted that he will argue the case only on the point of law and not on fact. The first submission made by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas was that merit should be the criteria as contained in Sub Rule(ii) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2009 and so the selection should be made strictly in terms of the written examination as well as interview-cum-personality test. Written examination must be according to the syllabus prescribed in Schedule I of the Rules. The syllabus prescribed in the Schedule clearly mentioned six items and the marks also distributed as per the items. The examination was to be conducted for 100 marks within one hour. The breakup of marks on various items as contained in Schedule I reads as follows: The break up of marks on various topics will be as follows: Topic Marks i) Comprehension of a given passage 20 ii) Usage(corrections) 10 iii) Vocabulary(synonyms & antonyms, idioms & phrases) 10 iv) General knowledge (Questions will include knowledge of Indian and geography of such a nature which the candidates should be able to answer without any special study. Questions on Tripura, its historian topography will also be included.) 20 v) Current Affairs (The questions will include knowledge of Indian current events and of such matters of every day observation and experience in their scientific aspects as may be expected of an educated person who has not made a special study of any scientific subject.) 20 vi) Mental Ability. 20 Total 100 12. The first contention of Mr. Biswas, learned counsel was that the examination was not conducted according to the syllabus. 13. 20 Total 100 12. The first contention of Mr. Biswas, learned counsel was that the examination was not conducted according to the syllabus. 13. According to respondent No.3, the examination was conducted absolutely as per the syllabus, but the manner of conducting the examination and setting of questions are the prerogative of the Commission and the candidates cannot dictate the same. 14. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for respondent No.3 produced the original record which contains the booklet of questions which was to be answered by the candidates. On perusal of Annexure 5 i.e. the programme of examination I find that it was clearly mentioned that General Studies will be of 100 percent MCQ type and will comprise of 50 nos. of questions each carrying two marks, and further that there shall be negative marking of one mark for each wrong answer/multiple answer on the paper General Studies. MCQ part of Civil Engineering PaperI and II also to be answered in the supplied OMR sheets and there will be no negative marking. 15. Admittedly, on receipt of the programme from the Public Service Commission the petitioners did not raise any objection in respect of the manner of setting the questions and as a whole about the conducting of examination. 16. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Schedule I, in respect of the subject ‘General Studies’, the questions were to be set on five topics and the marks also were allocated for each topic and while conducting the examination respondent No.3 has amalgamated the entire process and thereby diluted the prescribed provision in respect of the subject mentioned in the Schedule. The Commission had no authority to do so and thereby the Commission violated the rules and hence the entire examination process has been vitiated. 17. On perusal of the records placed by respondent No.3, I find that the booklet which contained a passage followed by MCQ type questions i.e. 10 questions each of two numbers which fulfilled the topic No.1 of the subject ‘General Studies’. The next question was to find out correct sentence and thereafter to find out incorrect sentence and then to find out idioms and thereafter questions on General Knowledge and Current Affairs as well as on Mental Ability test. The next question was to find out correct sentence and thereafter to find out incorrect sentence and then to find out idioms and thereafter questions on General Knowledge and Current Affairs as well as on Mental Ability test. So I find nothing to arrive at a conclusion exclusively that TPSC deviated from the Schedule in respect of the subject ‘General Studies’. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Lanka & Anr. v. Rishi Dixit & Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 598(paragraphs 55 and 56), but I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the present case. 18. The next point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas was that Rule 11 does not prescribe any method of negative marking, whereas respondent No.3 introduced negative marking in respect of the subject ‘General Studies’, which was totally uncalled for and not at all warranted, since an Engineer was supposed to be skilled having merit in engineering subject and in ‘General Studies’ one may not have that much of merit, whereas in that subject negative marking was applied, and as a result the total examination was a faulty examination and therefore liable to be interfered. 19. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb and learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman submitted that the petitioners received the programme. They along with others participated in the examination without raising any protest. The examination was conducted on 28.06.2015 and 29.06.2015. The recommendation by the TPSC was made on 17.09.2015 and when they found that they were unsuccessful, they filed the writ petition on 14.01.2016. It shows that the petition has been filed only when they came out unsuccessful and once they participated in the selection process now they cannot turn around the selection process and cannot say that the selection process was not according to the procedure prescribed by law. The respondents relied on the cases of Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 , Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 . 20. The petitioners were members of the TES working in GrV(A) as Junior Engineer. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 , Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 . 20. The petitioners were members of the TES working in GrV(A) as Junior Engineer. It is to be presumed that they knew about the rules and procedures of the Department. They are not freshers to the examination process. The advertisement was made on 23.05.2015. If they had any confusion about the syllabus or the manner of examination they would seek clarification from the Public Service Commission but they did not do so. Admittedly, they were supplied with the programme of examination which contained the manner in which the examination will be conducted, i.e. MCQ type questions and negative marking in respect of the subject ‘General Studies’. Had they any grievance in respect of the manner of setting of questions and the manner of conducting the examination, they would definitely raise the voice immediately after the examination was conducted, but they remained silent. They filed the writ petition only after they found that they were unsuccessful in the competitive examination. 21. There is no prescription of negative marking in Rule 11. There is also nothing to show that TPSC, which is an expert body, while conducting the examination cannot do so. Rule 9 prescribes that matters for which no specific provision has been made in the Regulations shall be decided by the Commission. This specific provision has been made about the conduct of examination and the syllabus thereof. So, while conducting the examination, if the Commission prescribes that there shall be negative marking and such decision of the Commission was reflected in the programme of the examination, I think nothing wrong was committed by the Commission to hold that the Commission travelled beyond the prescribed limit, and therefore the entire process was wrong. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas referred the decision of the case of B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute reported in AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 22), but I find no relevance to apply the ratio of that decision in the facts of the present case. 22. The next point argued by learned counsel, Mr. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas referred the decision of the case of B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute reported in AIR 1984 SC 363 (para 22), but I find no relevance to apply the ratio of that decision in the facts of the present case. 22. The next point argued by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas was that Rule 11(iv) prescribes that unreserved category candidates shall have to secure 40 percent marks in each subject and the petitioners were all unreserved category. Clause(v) prescribes that the Commission in exceptional circumstances shall fix minimum qualifying marks for a paper and minimum qualifying aggregate marks for all papers. The proviso to clause(v) prescribes that if a candidate fails to secure minimum qualifying marks in a subject that should not be taken to consideration for aggregate. According to Mr. Biswas, the Commission whimsically fixed the aggregate of 200 marks for UR category candidates and no reason has been assigned. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Panday v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 . Para 49 of the judgment which reads as follows: “The Constitution declares that India is a sovereign democratic republic. The requirement of such democratic republic is that every action of the State is to be informed with reason. State is not a hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy.” 23. No doubt, every action of a statutory authority must be supported by reason. As it appears, advertisement was made for 53 posts and the Commission after conducting the examination could recommend only 37 candidates. After the written examination the Commission considered the overall performance of the candidates and thereafter took a decision that a candidate, who secures minimum 200 marks in all the subjects will be called for interview excluding the marks in the subject, which is below the minimum prescribed marks. Though not in details, the Commission assigned reason for fixing the minimum aggregate mark. Rule 11(v) prescribes that the Commission at its discretion shall fix the minimum qualifying marks for a paper and also minimum aggregate marks for all the papers. So, the Rule has given discretionary power to the Commission to arrive at a decision in respect of aggregate for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview-cum-personality test. 24. Rule 11(v) prescribes that the Commission at its discretion shall fix the minimum qualifying marks for a paper and also minimum aggregate marks for all the papers. So, the Rule has given discretionary power to the Commission to arrive at a decision in respect of aggregate for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview-cum-personality test. 24. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 shows that petitioner No.1 secured 37 in General Studies and since he failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks that mark of 37 was not taken into account but in other two subjects since he secured 205 marks he was called for interview. Petitioner No.2, Rajesh Saha secured 38 marks in ‘General Studies’ but in other two subjects he secured 214 marks and so he was called for interview and in both the cases the mark obtained in ‘General Studies’ subject was not counted. Petitioner No.3 secured only 33 marks in General Studies and in engineering paper he secured 189 marks and he was not called for vivavoce. According to respondent No.3, the selection of candidates was made strictly in accordance with merit and there is nothing to interfere in it. 25. It is an admitted position, as already stated hereinbefore, the petitioners participated in the selection process and when they came out unsuccessful they turned around the selection process and challenged it. In the case of Madan Lal(supra) the Supreme Court in para 9 observed— "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. 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. 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, 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." In the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai(supra) the Supreme Court in para 17 observed: “17. 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.(See Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 150 , and K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395 ).” In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613 [ (2013) 11 SCC 309 ], the Supreme Court in para 18 and 24 of the judgment observed— "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613 [ (2013) 11 SCC 309 ], the Supreme Court in para 18 and 24 of the judgment observed— "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted 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." In the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069 , the Supreme Court in para 12 observed— "12. The law on the subject has been crystallized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 3 SCC 100, this Court held that: "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same... (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 , and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 ).” The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah(supra) where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: "16. 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. 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K. MANU/SC/0208/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 522 , Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0077/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (supra)." In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 , candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that: "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome." In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 , it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 , this Court held that: "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. This, 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." This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam, (2016) 1 SCC 454 ." 26. The petitioners definitely participated in the selection process with an object to come out successful. They appeared in the written examination. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 also participated in the interview. They did not raise any voice before the select list was published. Once they found that their names were not there in the select list they filed the writ petition making the allegations that the conduct of examination was not lawful. Had they come out successful, it is clear that they would not file the writ petition. Simply because their names did not find place in the select list they challenged the entire selection process. Had they come out successful, it is clear that they would not file the writ petition. Simply because their names did not find place in the select list they challenged the entire selection process. I find no such glaring violation of the rules or procedure to arrive at a conclusion that the examination and the selection process was not conducted according to rules. 27. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel candidly submitted that even after noticing the infirmities, if this constitutional Court does not interfere in the process, it will indulge in doing wrong in future. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas. Every statutory authority is bound to deal with their subjects according to law. Nobody is above law in a country. Everybody is subordinate to the law and is bound to follow the law in letter and spirit. While the law itself prescribes that the authority while exercising the power can apply discretion, the particular authority can therefore reasonably exercise their discretion, but that discretion must be exercised with logic and reason. TPSC is a constitutional body and it is expected that it shall follow the rules and procedure while conducting examination for selection of the candidates on the requisition of the State Government or otherwise. The apprehension of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that it will indulge in doing wrong by the TPSC cannot be accepted. 28. The writ petition is therefore found to be devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed. 29. Parties to bear their own costs. 30. Return the files to the learned counsel of respondent No.3.