JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to consider his case for appointment as Clerical Grade-III. 2. Mr Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case, has submitted that in terms of its advertisement dated 10.07.2014, the selection process has been initiated wherein the selection process has been decided which consist of 02 (two) stages i.e., written test and viva voce and out of total 100 marks, 85 marks has been decided to be kept and written test and 15 marks for interview. The passing marks of written test has been fixed on 50 for general candidates and 45 for SC/ST candidates while pass marks for viva voce has been fixed 9 for all candidates. 3. According to him there is infirmity in the selection process for the reason that two merit lists have been prepared, one has been annexed in Annexure 4 wherein the list of such candidates are there, who have been found to be successful in the written examination as per the pass marks provided in the advertisement, but subsequent thereto the respondent authorities have come out with the second list as has been annexed as Annexure - 6 wherein, the failed candidates who have secured less marks than the qualifying marks have also been included and on the basis of that they have been called upon to participate in the interview and on the basis of that a merit list has been prepared and therefore the chance of the success of the petitioner has been vanished. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. In course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the advertisement there is no reference of any vacancy but the respondent-management has stated in the counter affidavit that altogether 479 vacancy have been filled up. He further submits that it is mandatory requirement for the appointing authority or the selection body to insert the exact number of vacancy in the advertisement in order to avoid confusion in the selection process but that has not been done as such illegality has been committed by the appointing authority. 5. Mr. He further submits that it is mandatory requirement for the appointing authority or the selection body to insert the exact number of vacancy in the advertisement in order to avoid confusion in the selection process but that has not been done as such illegality has been committed by the appointing authority. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondentBharat Coking Coal Limited on the strength of counter affidavit, has submitted that there is no illegality committed by the selection body although there is no reference of any vacancy but the total number of vacancy as has been inserted by the appointing authority was 479. He further admits that initially, it was the decision of the authority to call upon successful candidates who have qualified in the written Exam but subsequently all the candidates have been allowed to be participated in the Interview/viva voice test but as per the list annexed Annexure B to the counter affidavit none of the candidates has been selected who have not been found to be successful in written examination as is evident from the list containing the names of 479 candidates. He submits that the last selected candidate, amongst 479 candidate, has got 52 marks in written examination and 11 marks in interview hence on attaining 63 marks the candidate has been selected and engaged. Since the petitioner has obtained 60 marks and as such below in the merit list, has not been selected and engaged. As such, there is no illegality in not engaging the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going across the materials available on record and the pleading filed by the respective parties, it is evident that an advertisement had been published by the respondent authorities inviting applications to fill up the vacancies of Clerk/Store Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade - III, the petitioner is concern with the vacancy of clerk in Clerical Grade-III. It is evident from the advertisement that the decision was taken by the selecting committee to select the candidates on the basis of two stages of examination i.e. written test and viva voceinterview, written test consist of 85 marks while interview consist of 15 marks. The pass marks for Viva-voce interview test has been fixed to 9 marks for all candidates with stipulation that separate viva voce interview test shall be held for SC/ST candidates by relaxed standard. The pass marks for Viva-voce interview test has been fixed to 9 marks for all candidates with stipulation that separate viva voce interview test shall be held for SC/ST candidates by relaxed standard. The petitioner along with other candidates have participated in the selection process and the petitioner, on the basis of the assessment and performance in the written test, has got 50 marks and being declared to be qualified as per the criteria of selection process and called upon to participate in the interview in which he has got 10 marks, total comes to 60 marks. The petitioner has not been communicated with any communication with respect to appointment and as such, he has made representation before the authority for consideration of his case for appointment, but when no action has been taken by the authorities he has approached this court by filing this instant writ petition. 7. This Court has gone across the stand taken by respondent authority in the counter affidavit wherein altogether 479 candidates have been appointed on the basis of a merit list annexed as Annexure-B. The total vacancies, which have been filled up to serial no of the candidates who have got 52 marks in written test and 11 marks in interview total 63 marks and therefore, according to them 63 marks in aggregate has been obtained by the last selected candidates. Since the petitioner has got 60 marks, therefore the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is illegality committed by the selection committee by calling upon the candidates who have failed in the written test and if they would not have been called upon, there should be a chance of getting opportunity of appointment, but it is evident from the material available on record, that none of failed candidate in the written examination has been engaged rather the last selected candidate who has got 63 marks, has been selected as is evident from the annexure B annexed to counter affidavit. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the issue that in the advertisement there is no stipulation regarding the vacancy and as such, the selection process is not proper, but at this stage this point is not available to him due to the reason that the petitioner consciously knowing the terms and conditions of the advertisement, has participated in the selection process and being declared to be unsuccessful on the basis of merit position, he cannot raise the issue questioning the legality of advertisement on the basis of legal proposition that once a candidate has participated in the selection process and declared unsuccessful he hold to challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. reported in , (1976) 3 SCC 585 , wherein at paragraph 15, it has been held that if a candidate did not before appearing for the interview at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the Constitution of the Selection Committee, rather he seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so it is not now open to him to turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee. Failure to take the plea at an earlier stage created a power of waiver against him. 9. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. reported in , (1986) Supp1 SCC 285, wherein at Paragraph-24 it has been laid down that if a candidate had appeared in the examination without protest, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 realizing that he would not succeed in the examination. 10. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in , (2007) 11 SCC 522 wherein at paragraph-19 it has been laid down that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur, they did not question the validity of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in , (2007) 11 SCC 522 wherein at paragraph-19 it has been laid down that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur, they did not question the validity of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process. 11. In the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in , (2011) 1 SCC 150 wherein at Paragraph-24 it has been held that if the candidates knowing the requirements of the selection process and fully aware with the process, they appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and have taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now they cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. 12. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid legal aspect, according to the considered view of this Court this is not available to the petitioner to challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement. In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of positive direction in his favour and therefore writ petition lacks merit and consequently, the same is, hereby, dismissed.