JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order No.F.2(1-203)-MS/ESTT/2013(Sub-IV) dated 4th June, 2013 [Annexure-III to the writ petition] whereby the respondent No.4 has been appointed in the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. The petitioner had participated in the walk-in interview for selection to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy). From the notification under No. ICA-D-496/12 [Annexure-II to the writ petition] it appears that there were 14 vacancies for selection. Out of which 3 vacancies were reserved for SC candidates, 4 vacancies for ST candidates and remaining 7 vacancies were allocated for UR candidates. It was clearly adverted that appointments would be made on fixed pay basis at Rs.7,780/- per month. The educational and the technical qualification as declared to be require for forming eligibility is as under : 1. H.S (+2 Stage) with Science, passed from a recognized institution. 2. Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution. The candidates who are within the age limit of 18 to 40 years were to be considered. However, relaxation of 5 years would also be provided for the SC, ST/PH/Ex- service man candidates, wherever applicable. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner had the eligibility to appear in the said walk-in interview as the petitioner passed the H.S. Examination from Tripura Board of Secondary Education with Science in the year 2005 and she obtained the Diploma in Pharmacy from the Board of Examining Authority, Drugs Control Department, Government of Karnataka in the year 2008. On 07.09.2012, the candidates who applied for the selection were interviewed and their original documents were scrutinized. 3. By the impugned order dated 04.06.2013, as many as 13 candidates were appointed including the respondent No.4 namely Md. Jamil Ahmed Khan out of those 14 vacancies. Those candidates were given their posting by the said order dated 04.06.2013. 4. It is apparent that all the vacancies allotted for the UR candidates were exhausted by the said process. The petitioner has averred that she caused disclosure under Right to Information Act in respect of the qualification of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has formed a comparative statement of marks and economic criteria under Para-9 of the writ petition in the following manner: Name Marks in Diploma in pharmacy Part-I Marks in Diploma in Pharmacy Part-II Economic Criteria Md. The petitioner has averred that she caused disclosure under Right to Information Act in respect of the qualification of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has formed a comparative statement of marks and economic criteria under Para-9 of the writ petition in the following manner: Name Marks in Diploma in pharmacy Part-I Marks in Diploma in Pharmacy Part-II Economic Criteria Md. Jamil Ahmed Total = 554 Total =623 APL Year = 2010 Year = 2011 Ruzina Choudhury Total = 780 Year = 2006 Total = 669 Year = 2007 BPL 5. The petitioner has further averred that she belongs from a family categorized as Below Poverty Line (BPL) and there is no government employee in their family. That apart, the petitioner has asserted that there was no written examination and only on the marks obtained in the public examination, seniority and the economic conditions the selection has been made inasmuch as in the interview the original documents were scrutinized. Thus, the petitioner has submitted that the selection is in violation of the government policy as well as the equality clause under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, out of 14 vacancies, 13 vacancies were filled up and still one vacancy is available. In respect of this averment, this court is of the view that from the records produced by the respondents, it appears that 1 vacancy allotted for SC candidate could not be filled up. Hence, this claim of the petitioner cannot have any relevance in the context. Finally, what emerges from the averments is that the petitioner’s grievance has emanated from absence of any procedural guidelines for the interview. 6. From reading of the reliefs as prayed, it appears that the petitioner has not thrown any challenge against the procedure, though in the averments some reservation has been expressed. The relief is confined to quashing of the order of appointment in respect of the respondent No.4, not against the other UR candidates who have been selected and recruited by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Even there is no allegation of bias against the interview board. Thus, the foundation of the challenge is on the basis of comparative merit of the candidate and this court has been urged to reevaluate that aspect of the selection. 7. Even there is no allegation of bias against the interview board. Thus, the foundation of the challenge is on the basis of comparative merit of the candidate and this court has been urged to reevaluate that aspect of the selection. 7. The respondents to controvert such allegations have filed their reply on 28.11.2013 and denied the allegation of discriminating the petitioner against the respondent No.4. According to the respondents, open employment notice was published and those candidates who applied for the said post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) and those were found eligible according to the adverted qualification were called for the interview. The interview board had devised their own procedure to select the suitable candidates and thereafter recommended 13 candidates. The interview board did not recommend the name of the petitioner. It has been asserted by the respondents in Para-6 of their reply as follows : “Petitioner appeared in the selection process keeping her eyes open therefore, she is stopped by her conduct to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that here has been no specific procedure adopted by the Interview Board. The respondent No.4 secured more marks in the Interview vis-à-vis the petitioner as such the respondent No.4 has been given the offer of appointment though both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 belongs to B.P.L. Card Holder family, but the members of the family of the respondent No.4 is large in number than the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has gone by the recommendation of the duly constituted Interview Board. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitioner filed by the petitioner. Hence the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.” 8. The respondents have also denied that there had been any violation in the government recruitment policy as stated. In the reply, they have disclosed that the petitioner obtained 9 out of 20 marks whereas the respondent No.4 obtained 13 out of 20 marks in the interview. Thus, the respondent No.4 secured the higher aggregate marks and for that reason, he was recommended for appointment. The respondent No.2 after thoroughly scrutinized the records of the interview proceeding issued the offer of appointment as there was no infirmity in the process. The respondents have also submitted a copy of the revised employment policy contained in Memorandum No.F.1(4)-GA(P & T)/99 dated 26th May, 2012. The respondent No.2 after thoroughly scrutinized the records of the interview proceeding issued the offer of appointment as there was no infirmity in the process. The respondents have also submitted a copy of the revised employment policy contained in Memorandum No.F.1(4)-GA(P & T)/99 dated 26th May, 2012. The petitioner have nowhere asserted that the vacancy against which the respondent No.4 has been entertained fell in the ‘need’ category. As such, no evaluation in that aspect of the matter is required to be carried out. 9. The respondent No.4 represented by Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel has filed the reply as well and adopted the argument launched by the respondents No.1 and 2. But he has categorically denied that the interview board only scrutinized the original documents. The interview board has also put few questions to the candidates to ascertain their merit (see Para-10). The respondent No.4 has averred that when the selection process is sought to be questioned, the appointments of the other candidates should have been challenged. In absence of those candidates in the array of parties, this court cannot examine the validity of the selection process inasmuch as if the selection process is intervened for any reason, their appointments will also be adversely affected. 10. The petitioner has filed one affidavit against the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 and reiterated that there was breach of the Employment Policy dated 02.06.2012. Further, a new plea has been raised in that affidavit that since in Tanmoy Nath and Others versus State of Tripura and Others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731, that policy was declared illegal, any recruitment based on the said policy is bound to be unconstitutional and illegal. 11. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has confined his submission to that that the policy which has been declared by this court as invalid and unconstitutional and if that policy is made the basis of any recruitment, those recruitments are to be held in violation of the equality clause. 12. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has curtly submitted that the petitioner has raised the objection that the appointment as made in favour of the respondent No.4 has been made in violation of the policy of the government. The relevant part of Para-8 of the writ petition as referred by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. is extracted hereunder : “…….. 12. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has curtly submitted that the petitioner has raised the objection that the appointment as made in favour of the respondent No.4 has been made in violation of the policy of the government. The relevant part of Para-8 of the writ petition as referred by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. is extracted hereunder : “…….. as such the petitioner finally believes that she has been denied the appointment in the post of pharmacist (ALLO) in violation of the policy of the Government and as such the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and the petitioner is entitled to be recruited in the post of pharmacist (ALLO) on the strength of the academic performance cum seniority cum need.” 13. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned G.A. has further submitted that when the process is challenged, all the beneficiaries of the said process are to be brought on records inasmuch as if any decision adverse to their interest is taken, the court will not be in a position to hand down such decision. That apart, there is no allegation of bias against the interview board, neither the members of the interview board have been made party to repel such allegation, if any. 14. There is no dispute that before issuance of the appointment order, which is under challenge, the petitioner did not throw any challenge against the process. Such challenge has been thrown only when it was known to the petitioner that she did not come out successful in the process and she filed this writ petition to question the said recruitment. 15. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has contended that the petitioner is estopped by her conduct to challenge the recruitment process as she had participated in the process all through and challenge the same only after she found herself not selected. In Union of India verses S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 where the apex court has held as under : “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 Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil : (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, : (2006) 12 SCC 724 )” 16. 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 Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil : (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, : (2006) 12 SCC 724 )” 16. Having appreciated the precedence in this regard including Amlan Jyoti Borooah versus State of Assam reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 , the apex court has approved the law as enunciated in Ramesh Chandra Shah versus Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 where the apex court has reiterated the law as under: “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.” 17. The position of law was further consolidated. Following Chandigarh Admn. versus Jasmine Kaur reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521 , in Pradeep Kumar Rai versus Dinesh Kumar Pandey reported in (2015)11 SCC 493 it has been held as under : “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. 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.” There is no ambiguity. The similar principle is repeatedly stated in the various judgments. The last of such judgments as relied, is Ashok Kumar and Another versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 . 18. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that in Raj Kumar versus Shakti Raj reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the apex court has declared the law when discovery of illegality occurs. Even the unsuccessful candidate can in such circumstances challenge the process of selection and the doctrine of estopple cannot be invoked against him to frustrate the challenge. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that in Raj Kumar versus Shakti Raj reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the apex court has declared the law when discovery of illegality occurs. Even the unsuccessful candidate can in such circumstances challenge the process of selection and the doctrine of estopple cannot be invoked against him to frustrate the challenge. In Ashok Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court has distinguished Raj Kumar’s principle very lucidly in the following words : “20. The decision in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj (which was relied upon by the appellants) involved a case where the Government was found to have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure. Hence, it was held that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence had no application. The decision is distinguishable.” 19. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is confronted with the pertinent questions viz. (1) whether the writ petition is hit by the doctrine of estoppel ? (2) Whether the Raj Kumar’s principle has any application in the present context ? and (3) whether the court can assess the comparative merit of the persons participated in the selection process when there is no allegation of bias against the members of the interview board? 20. Having regard to the law enunciated by Pradeep Kumar Rai(supra) this court is bound to observe that if the petitioner had any grievance against the process of the selection, she should have immediately raised her grievance without waiting for the outcome of the process. The challenge herein has come after a long time when she discovered that she had not been appointed but the respondent No.4 had been recommended for appointment. Thus, the writ petition is definitely hit by the estoppel by conduct. Even the Raj Kumar (supra) principle cannot salvage the petitioner from being plunged into the swirl of the legally devised principle called estoppel by conduct inasmuch as this court does not find any glaring illegality or infirmity in the procedure. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The petitioner in this writ petition has taken the ground that the policy has been flouted and subsequently asserted in the rejoinder that the policy was struck down by the court and hence, the entire process is illegal. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The petitioner in this writ petition has taken the ground that the policy has been flouted and subsequently asserted in the rejoinder that the policy was struck down by the court and hence, the entire process is illegal. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that from the records as produced by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. this court finds that the process was completed earlier than 12.04.2013 and much before the said judgment in Tanmoy Nath (supra) as referred by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how she was treated unfairly. The respondents in this regard have exposited how the petitioner secured the lesser score in the interview and got excluded. Hence, this court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference from this court. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The records as produced by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. is returned.