Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1271 (GAU)

Abdul Hye v. State of Assam

2017-09-08

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7. None had appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though the names of the learned counsel are shown in the cause-list. None had appeared for the respondent No. 3 as well. 2. This writ petition was listed together along with WP (C) Nos. 2014/2016 and 1168/2016 and also was initially heard together. However, later on, this case was de-linked and heard separately. 3. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the select list dated 3.2.2016 (wrongly written as 3.1.2016), whereby the respondent No. 7 was selected for the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) of Rupahi Higher Secondary School and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioner for the aforesaid post of LDA. 4. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, in short, is that in the meeting of the School Management and Development Committee (‘SMDC’) of Rupahi Higher Secondary School held on 8.12.2015, a Selection Committee was constituted for conducting selection of candidate for the vacant post of LDA with the President, SMDC, Member Secretary, SMDC, Shri Narayan Bora, Member and Shri Jalal Uddin Ahmed, Guardian Member and thereafter, pursuant to the resolution of the SMDC, the respondent No. 6, who is the Principal of Rupahi Higher Secondary School, issued an advertisement dated 10.12.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of the post of LDA indicating very specifically that apart from other qualifications as prescribed therein, the candidate must have typewriting diploma in both English and Assamese. The petitioner having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, applied for the said post and Admit Card was issued for the written test to be held on 21.1.2016 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 5. The respondent No. 7 had also appeared in the written test but to the information of the petitioner, he had no typewriting diploma in both English and Assamese. Information was sought by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with regard to the documents submitted by the respondent No. 7 along with his application. 6. The respondent No. 7 had also appeared in the written test but to the information of the petitioner, he had no typewriting diploma in both English and Assamese. Information was sought by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with regard to the documents submitted by the respondent No. 7 along with his application. 6. On 29.1.2016, the respondent-authorities published the result of written test, which shows that the petitioner obtained highest mark with 72 out of 80 and, thus, was placed at serial No. 1. The name of the respondent No. 7 figured at serial No. 2 and he had obtained 68 marks out of 80. The successful candidates were asked to appear for a typing test and oral test on 31.1.2016 and while appearing for the aforesaid tests, the petitioner noticed the presence of an outsider in the Interview Board. It is stated in the writ petition that in the Interview Board, one of the Members, namely, Jalal Uddin Ahmed, was absent and in his place, an outsider was present. Despite doing very well in the written test, typing test and oral test, when the select list was published on 3.1.2016 (should have been 3.2.2016), the respondent No. 7 was shown to have been selected. 7. In the entire writ petition, whenever there is a reference to the select list, date is wrongly given as 3.1.2016. However, the court will refer to the date as 3.2.2016 in the judgment. 8. On 29.1.2016, reply to the RTI enquiry was furnished and the information supplied goes to show that the respondent No. 7 did not furnish any computer diploma document. The information furnished further revealed that the respondent No. 6 himself had engaged one SMDC Member to sit in the Interview Board. 9. By filing an additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record an Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015, which is on the subject of guidelines for recruitment of Junior Assistant in Provincialised Higher Secondary and High School/High Madrassa. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that Rupahi Higher Secondary School was established in the year 1946 and provincialised in the year 1977. 10. In the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it was stated that 55 candidates had applied for the post but only 32 numbers of candidates were present in the written test. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that Rupahi Higher Secondary School was established in the year 1946 and provincialised in the year 1977. 10. In the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it was stated that 55 candidates had applied for the post but only 32 numbers of candidates were present in the written test. At the time of typing test and oral test, the Guardian Member, Alai Uddin Ahmed (referred to as Jalal Uddin Ahmed by the writ petitioner) was absent and accordingly a teacher, who is a Member of the SMDC, was allowed to sit in the Interview Board and thereafter, the final select list was published on 3.2.2016. It is also averred that no written diploma certificates were found with the application form of the respondent No. 7 and that the Selection Committee decided to allow him to participate in the selection process. 11. The respondent No. 7 had also filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, he has denied the allegation that he had not submitted typewriting diploma and he stated that he had submitted both computer diploma certificate as well as typewriting diploma certificate along with the application form. It is pleaded that the newly engaged Member of the Interview Board was not known to him and that he had come to know about his inclusion in the Interview Board only after receiving a copy of the writ petition. As the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle did not take any steps to appoint the respondent No. 7, he had approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was numbered as WP (C) No. 2204/2016 and this court, by an order dated 4.4.2016, had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein to examine and dispose of the representation dated 10.2.2016 submitted by the respondent No. 7 within a period of 1 month. 12. The respondent No. 4, i.e. the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, had filed an affidavit. However, the said affidavit was wrongly recorded to be an affidavit of the respondent No. 3. 12. The respondent No. 4, i.e. the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, had filed an affidavit. However, the said affidavit was wrongly recorded to be an affidavit of the respondent No. 3. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the question papers in sealed packets were given to him by the Principal of the School in presence of the Executive Magistrate deputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Supervising Officers had taken the sealed packets of the question papers to the concerned examination venues and had handed over the same to the venue Incharge 1 hour before commencement of the written examination. After examination was over, the sealed packets were kept in the custody of the nearest police station and on the next day, sealed packets of the answer scripts were brought to the examination venues and they were evaluated in presence of the Members of the Selection Committee and Supervising Officers. The typing test and computer knowledge were assessed by the computer expert deputed with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the marks of typing test and computer knowledge were awarded to the candidates based on their performance by the computer expert. Although the certificate of typewriting was not found in case of respondent No. 7, the Selection Committee decided to allow him to participate in the selection process and at the time of typing test, he had shown the original typing certificate. It is also stated that a Member of the SMDC was allowed to act as the Member of the School Level Selection Committee in place of Alai Uddin Ahmed as his own brother was also a candidate for the said post. 13. In the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioner to the affidavit of the respondent No. 4, it is stated that Amiruddin Ahmed, who was a brother of Alai Uddin Ahmed, a Member of the School Level Selection Committee, had not qualified in the written test. It is further stated that in any event if one parent Member was absent, his place should have been filled up by another parent Member with prior consent of the SMDC and approval of the Inspector of Schools. It is further stated that in any event if one parent Member was absent, his place should have been filled up by another parent Member with prior consent of the SMDC and approval of the Inspector of Schools. Placing reliance on rule 4 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (‘2003 Rules’) it is also pleaded that the respondents acted illegally in conducting the viva-voce test for the post of LDA as the 2003 Rules did not visualise holding of a viva-voce test for Grade III posts. 14. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application of the respondent No. 7 being defective as he had not submitted diploma certificates relating to typing and computer test, he ought not to have been all owed to take part in the selection process. Placing reliance on clause 6(vii) of an Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015, he submits that the Principal could not have, on his own, substituted a Member of the Selection Committee and, therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated. Placing reliance on rule 4 of the 2003 Rules, he has vehemently contended that for the recruitment process to fill up a Grade III post, like that of Lower Division Assistant, holding of viva-voce test is not prescribed and, therefore, on this count also, the selection process cannot be sustained as the respondent-authorities had brought in an additional test to judge the suitability of the candidates for selection and appointment though not contemplated under the extant Rules. In support of his submissions, Mr. Islam has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J&K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630 and a decision of this court in the case of Dr. Biren Das vs. Tezpur University, (2003) 3 GLR 174. 15. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that the respondent No. 7 had submitted all documents along with his application and to buttress the same, he has drawn the attention of the court to the photocopy of the application submitted by the respondent No. 7, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the respondent No. 7 had submitted copies of English and Assamese typewriting certificates. He has also pointed out that in the report furnished to the RTI application of Abdul Sattar (Annexure J of the writ petition), all that is said is that no computer diploma document was found, which is not same as non-submission of document. It is contended by him that candidature of the respondent No. 7 was not rejected for non-submission of documents and that by itself goes to show that the application of the respondent No. 7 was in order. If the document was misplaced by the authorities at a subsequent point of time, respondent No. 7 cannot be penalized, he submits. He has further submitted that the argument advanced that 2003 Rules does not visualise holding of viva-voce test, is clearly misconceived. Further submission of Mr. Mazumdar is that the selection of the respondent No. 7 cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that the Principal had engaged one of the Members of SMDC to be a part of the Interview Board in substitution of one of the originally nominated Members in the Selection Board as his brother was also taking part in the selection process. In absence of allegation of mala fide, when the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 7 had faced the same Selection Board, no prejudice is caused to the writ petitioner. It is submitted by him that having taken part in the selection process and having appeared before the Interview Board, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the constitution of the Selection Committee after being not successful. Mr. Mazumdar has placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Madan Lai vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 with particular emphasis on paragraphs 9 and 10 as well as in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, (2011) 1 SCC 150 with special emphasis on paragraph 24. 16. Mr. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department has produced the records of the selection and has submitted that there is no infirmity in the selection process. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 18. It appears from the records produced by Mr. Ghosh that in the written test while the petitioner had obtained 72 marks, the respondent No. 7 had obtained 68 marks. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 18. It appears from the records produced by Mr. Ghosh that in the written test while the petitioner had obtained 72 marks, the respondent No. 7 had obtained 68 marks. Though 10 candidates were called for oral interview, only 9 had appeared. Out of 30 marks in computer test, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 had obtained 11 marks and in the viva-voce, while the petitioner was awarded 3 marks, the respondent No. 7 was awarded 8 marks. The respondent No. 7 obtained total marks of 87 and the petitioner obtained 86 marks and, thus, there was a difference of only 1 mark in between them. The next placed candidate had obtained 79 marks. 19. From the certificates annexed with the affidavit of the respondent No. 7, it appears that he had completed Assamese and English typewriting diploma examination in the year 2010, which is 5 years prior to the present selection process in question. Annexure 1 to the affidavit of respondent No. 7 goes to show that in respect of other qualification, he had mentioned English and Assamese typewriting and indicated that copy is enclosed. Annexure J to the writ petition is a letter dated 29.1.2016, whereby reply to the enquiries made by one Abdul Sattar under the RTI Act was furnished. In the said letter, it was recorded, amongst others, as follows: “NB. No comp, diploma document found.” 20. Though none had appeared at the time of hearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in the affidavit filed by them, there is no averment that at the time of scrutiny of the documents, any endorsement was made on the application of the respondent No. 7 that documents relating to typewriting or computer typing was not found. No other acceptable material is also placed to demonstrate that despite deficiency in the application form of the respondent No. 7, he was allowed to take part in the selection process. The observation made in the letter dated 29.1.2016 does not indicate that the respondent No. 7 had not submitted the documents at the time of submission of his application form. The observation made in the letter dated 29.1.2016 does not indicate that the respondent No. 7 had not submitted the documents at the time of submission of his application form. Such observation, at best, goes to show that document relating to computer diploma was not available when reply to the applicant under RTI Act was given. 21. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the application of the respondent No. 7 cannot be held to be defective. 22. Rule 4 of the 2003 Rules provides for method of recruitment. The same is quoted herein below for better appreciation: “4. Method of recruitment:- (a) (i) Recruitment to the Cadre of Lower Division Assistant under rule 3(2)(a)(ii) and in Class IV posts under rule 3(2)(b) in the office of the High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be made directly by the Appointing Authority from the select list prepared by the School Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of rule 8(c) on the basis of test and interview. (ii) The Principal or the Head Master, as the case may be, where the vacancy exists or likely to exist within the next 3 months shall submit the proposal for filling up the said posts to the Inspector of Schools for approval. After obtaining approval of the Inspector of Schools the Principal or the Head Master shall inform the District Employment exchange about the vacancies with a request to send the list of candidates for selection to fill up the vacancies. (iii) After receipt of the list of candidates from District Employment Exchange the Principal or the Head Master shall inform the School Selection Committee to hold the written test for selection of Lower Division Assistant along with typewriting test and written test along with viva voce for Class IV posts in consultation with the Inspector of Schools concerned. (iv) Then the School Selection Committee shall prepare a select list of candidates containing double the number of vacancies and the Member-Secretary shall submit the select list to the Appointing Authority for appointment. The Appointing Authority, i.e. the Inspector of Schools concerned shall fill-up the vacancies in order of merit/preference from the select list and shall maintain the reservation provisions as per rule wherever applicable. The Appointing Authority, i.e. the Inspector of Schools concerned shall fill-up the vacancies in order of merit/preference from the select list and shall maintain the reservation provisions as per rule wherever applicable. (a) Academic qualification:- The qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Lower Division Assistant in High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be Higher Secondary Examination passed or equivalent and having diploma in English and Assamese typewriting. The qualification for the post of Class IV employee shall be Class X standard. (b) Age - A candidate for the post of Lower Division Assistant and Class IV shall be within the age limit of 18 to 36 years as on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement for direct recruitment.” 23. Rule 8(c) is wrongly referred to in rule 4(a)(i) above as there is no rule 8(c) in the 2003 Rules. It should have been referred to as rule 8(4) as the said Rule prescribes the constitution of School Selection Committee. Rule 8(4) is quoted herein below: “(4) The School Selection Committee for selection of Principal, Post Graduate Teacher/ Graduate Teacher and Non-teaching Staff of School shall be as follows: Chairman The President of Managing Committee Member (i) The Vice-Principal/a Post Graduate Teacher in case of Higher Secondary School or Assistant Headmaster/Senior most Graduate Teacher in case of High School. (ii) One parent to be nominated by-the Managing Committee. Member Secretary The Principal/Headmaster of the School. In addition to above, there shall be a Subject Expert in case of selection of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher, wherever necessary. 24. The Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 was issued as guidelines for recruitment of Junior Assistant. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the Junior Assistant is also known as Lower Division Assistant (LDA), which expression finds place in the 2003 Rules. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum goes to show that guidelines contained therein are issued for strict implementation of the 2003 Rules. 25. Rule 4(a)(i) of the 2003 Rules provides that recruitment to the cadre of LDA and in Class (IV) post in the office of High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be made directly by the appointing authority from the list prepared by the School Selection Committee constituted on the basis of test and interview. 25. Rule 4(a)(i) of the 2003 Rules provides that recruitment to the cadre of LDA and in Class (IV) post in the office of High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be made directly by the appointing authority from the list prepared by the School Selection Committee constituted on the basis of test and interview. Thus, rule 4(a) (i) is explicit that recruitment to the cadre of LDA is to be on the basis of test and interview. Rule 4(a)(iii) is not very happily worded. Rule 4(a)(iii) seeks to effectuate the provisions contained in rule 4(a)(i) and (ii). The essence of rule 4(a)(iii) is that the Principal or the Headmaster shall have to request the School Selection Committee to hold test and interview. For LDA, apart from written test, type writing test is also contemplated. Merely because expression viva-voce does not find place against LDA in rule 4(a)(iii) cannot lead to the conclusion that viva-voce is eliminated in the scheme of things for selection of LDA, as, if it were so held, the same will cause violence to the provision of rule 4(a)(i). Both rule 4(a) (i) and (iii) will have to be read together and harmonised. It will not be out of context to indicate that Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 also endorses holding of oral interview. In J&K Public Service Commission (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be made only in accordance with the Rules. The Rules having prescribed holding of viva voce for the purpose of recruitment to the post of LDA, the submission advanced by Mr. Islam to the contrary is found to be without any merit. 26. The Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 provides that written test shall be of 80 marks, typing test of 30 marks and oral interview of 10 marks. With regard to typing test, it is indicated that out of 30 marks, 10 marks are to be assigned for English typing, 10 marks for computer knowledge and 10 marks for Assamese typing and that if Assamese typing test is not decided to be taken, then liberty is granted to the School Selection Committee to divide the 30 marks for computer knowledge and English typing. 27. 27. It will now have to be considered as to whether selection of the respondent No. 7 is vitiated on account of improper constitution of the School Selection Committee which conducted the interview. It is an admitted position that one Alai Uddin Ahmed was nominated by the Managing Committee as a Parent Member to the School Selection Committee. It is also brought on record that his own brother had participated in the selection process but he had not reached the interview stage. Clause (6)(vii) of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 provides that in no case, will the President/Member of the Selection Committee participate in the selection process, if any of his or her close relatives are involved as candidates in the process. Even if there was no such provision, a member of any Selection Committee is not expected to take part in a selection process if his or her close relatives are taking part in the selection process as the same may give rise to reasonable likelihood of bias, which may invalidate the entire selection process. The Office Memorandum provides that in cases where a relative of a Member of the School Selection Committee is taking part in the selection process, the concerned Inspector of Schools is to nominate suitable alternatives. It does not appear from the pleadings that Alai Uddin Ahmed had notified the authorities that he would not be part of the School Selection Committee as his own brother was also a candidate. The pleadings indicate that without any notice he remained absent at the time of type writing test and oral test. Faced with such a situation, the Headmaster of the school allowed a teacher, who is also a Member of the SMDC, to sit in the Interview Board. The letter No. IS/NDC/CC/LDA/2016/1/3430 dated 12.6.2017 addressed to the standing counsel, produced by Mr. Ghosh, shows that daughter of Md. Mujibur Rahman, who was inducted by the Headmaster, is also a student of the school and, thus, he is also a parent of a student of the school. However, before engaging his services, the Headmaster did not apprise the matter to the Inspector of Schools and had not sought his approval. 28. Ghosh, shows that daughter of Md. Mujibur Rahman, who was inducted by the Headmaster, is also a student of the school and, thus, he is also a parent of a student of the school. However, before engaging his services, the Headmaster did not apprise the matter to the Inspector of Schools and had not sought his approval. 28. The petitioner, notwithstanding the stated stand in the writ petition that he, on the very same day of interview had become aware of the fact that a stranger was sitting in the Interview Board, took part in the interview process. Even if it is conceded that he could not have lodged a formal protest then and there, it was expected that after taking part in the interview, he ought to have raised his objection before appropriate authorities. The petitioner did not do so. He bided his time and waited till such time the result of the selection was declared. The replies to the applications under the RTI Act, which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure J&K in the writ petition, are not replies to the petitioner and the applicant was one Abdul Sattar. 29. In Madan Lal (supra), in paragraphs 9 and 10, the Supreme Court held as follows: “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 concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. 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, that 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 Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 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 Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : AIR 1986 SC 1043 , 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. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 30. The ratio of Madan Lal (supra) is that the result of the interview on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who took a chance to get selected at the interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, he cannot turn around and contend that process of selection was not fair and Selection Committee was not properly constituted. If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, he cannot turn around and contend that process of selection was not fair and Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Madan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court had relied on the above proposition laid down in the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : AIR 1986 SC 1043 . 31. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 , the Supreme Court noted that the appellant, although had known all relevant facts, he did not, before appearing in the interview or at the time of interview, raise any protest against the constitution of Selection Committee and accordingly had held that as he had voluntarily appeared before the Committee, it was not open to him to turn around and question the constitution of the Committee. In Sadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 , the Supreme Court observed that unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process, could not turnback and assail the selection process. Same view was taken in Monish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 by holding that having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks had been earmarked for the viva-voce test, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the criteria of process of selection. In Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) also, the Supreme Court reiterated that after a candidate had appeared in the interview and had taken a chance and opportunity without any protest at any stage, cannot turn around and say that the procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that 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. This court in Dr. Biren Das (supra) held that in the factual matrix of the case, the cases of Dr. G. Sarana (supra) and Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (supra) were not applicable. This court in Dr. Biren Das (supra) held that in the factual matrix of the case, the cases of Dr. G. Sarana (supra) and Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (supra) were not applicable. In the aforesaid case, this court had, despite the petitioner taking part in the selection process, accepted his plea on the ground that the composition of the Selection Committee was illegal and was in complete violation of the provisions of the statute. The same is not the case here. Having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court, as noted above, it is clear that as a general rule, a candidate who takes part in the selection process voluntarily even after being aware of any irregularity in the selection process including in the composition of the Selection Committee, cannot turn around and question the same subsequently after publication of the result. This is precisely what has happened in the instant case. That apart, initial composition of the School Selection Committee was according to rule 8(4) of the 2003 Rules. It was only because the Parent Member nominated to the School Selection Committee by the Managing Committee did not show up at the time of interview without any intimation, a teacher, who is also a parent of a student of the school, out of compelling necessity, was inducted to the Interview Board by the Headmaster of the school, who is also the Member-Secretary of the School Selection Committee. 32. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner cannot successfully challenge selection of the respondent No. 7 on the ground that there was irregularity in the composition of the School Selection Committee as he had taken a chance in the interview process and had not raised any grievance during the interview or at any point of time subsequent thereto till the publication of the result of the selection. 33. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.