JUDGMENT ; Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents in fixing the minimum qualifying marks for the interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Administrative officer. 2. It is not disputed that advertisement dated 15.12.2015 prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The petitioner is, however, aggrieved that the said minimum qualifying marks were left to be decided by the respondents after the interview was over. The minimum qualifying marks finally laid down as 30% is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi reported in AIR 2008 SCW 3205 as well as Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary and others reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 28. 3. As per the reply, the cut off marks for interview are decided before the initiation of the recruitment process and is, accordingly, informed to the Interview Committee members before the time of interview. The qualifying marks for interview were fixed by the Corporation on 18.01.2013 itself at the time of 27th Batch of the Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO) Recruitment and the same qualifying cut off marks for interview for eligibility for final selection maintained in the current recruitment of 29th Batch of AAO in the year 2015. 4. Heard. 5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra). However, the same does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case as the decision to fix the minimum qualifying marks for the interview was taken much after the written test was conducted. Para 9 of the said judgment is relevant which reads thus :- "9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for viva-voice. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for viva-voice was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. Para 9 of the said judgment is relevant which reads thus :- "9. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for viva-voice. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for viva-voice was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voice, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voice before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva-voice, test was illegal." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 152. In the said case, the sole criteria for recruitment was on the basis of viva-voice test and the Court held the said recruitment on the basis of viva-voice test alone to be bad. 7. Whereas, in the present case, it was specifically mentioned in the advertisement dated 15.12.2015 itself that a candidate will have to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the interview as will be decided by the L.I.C. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said advertisement knowing fully well that minimum qualifying marks shall be prescribed for the interview and that he shall have to obtain minimum qualifying marks to be laid down subsequently. The petitioner accordingly applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and appeared in the written examination. He cleared the written examination and participated in the interview. He challenged the said condition laid down in the advertisement only after the declaration of the result of the interview. It is a well settled proposition of law as also laid down in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 454 that a person, who does not clear the examination after participating in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same after he finds himself unsuccessful. In the said case, the question before the Apex Court was as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can subsequently turn around and question the method of selection and it was held that the said question is no more res integra in view of the well settled proposition of law and while relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J & K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the Apex Court held in para 16 as under :- "16. In Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:- 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. 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 Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 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. 8. 8. Similar view that challenge to the recruitment process after participating in the selection process is not permissible was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 150. Para 24 of the judgment reads as under: "24. 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 possess 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 aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction." 9. One of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents could not have fixed 30% marks for the interview which is excessive as laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Ashok alias Somanna Gowda & anr. (supra). No doubt, there is merit in the argument so raised by the learned counsel, however, the petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement knowing fully well that he has to fulfil the condition of minimum marks for the interview and the marks for the interview shall be fixed subsequently. He did not challenge the same at that point of time and challenged only after he found himself unsuccessful. Normally, the fixing of high marks in the interview are held to be bad as it is open to manipulation. He did not challenge the same at that point of time and challenged only after he found himself unsuccessful. Normally, the fixing of high marks in the interview are held to be bad as it is open to manipulation. However, in the present case, neither any malafide is alleged nor malafide can be read as 30% marks were fixed even at the time of selection of the 27th Batch in the year 2013 and the same has been continuously followed. Moreover, as already held above, a candidate cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after he finds himself unsuccessful after participating in the selection. 10. Dismissed accordingly.