JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks the following reliefs: (a) Writ of certiorari, quashing provisional select list of the candidates (respondent Nos.6 to 37) for the post of Pharmacists District Cadre Udhampur issued by respondent No.4 on 19.12.2006. (b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appoint the petitioner as Pharmacist in District Cadre Udhampur in view of his superior merit. 2. The facts, as these emerge from the study of the file under consideration are that an advertisement No.6 of 2004 dated 29.09.2004 was issued by respondents inviting applications from the permanent residents of the State for appointment against different posts. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner has also applied for the post of Pharmacist. Thereafter respondent Nos.3&4 shortlisted the candidates for the posts of Pharmacist and in Open Category shortlisted 62 candidates and the name of the petitioner figures at serial no.11. The petitioner was called to participate in the selection process and viva voce test. The petitioner faired well in the viva voce and was expecting on his selection on the basis of his merit and performance in the viva voce test. The petitioner was shocked and astonished to see the list issued on 19.12.2006 in which the name of the petitioner did not figure and the candidates having the lower merit than the petitioner have been selected. One such candidate (respondent No.36) whose merit was such lower than that of the petitioner has been selected. It is further contended that the petitioner is highly meritorious and the merit of the petitioner has been ignored and as already mentioned the candidates having less merit/qualification has been selected. The criteria adopted by the respondents in making the selection, was totally unjustified. The criterion was never published; however, the petitioner has come to know that the selection has been made on the basis of following criteria: S.No. Particulars Points 1. Matriculation Out of 25 points 2. 10+2 2 points 3. Graduation 03 points 4. Pharmacist Training Out of 50 ponts 5. Viva Voce 20 points 3. The criterion was never published; however, the petitioner has come to know that the selection has been made on the basis of following criteria: S.No. Particulars Points 1. Matriculation Out of 25 points 2. 10+2 2 points 3. Graduation 03 points 4. Pharmacist Training Out of 50 ponts 5. Viva Voce 20 points 3. It is further stated that the criteria adopted for making selection by the official respondents is totally illegal and unjustified while formulating the criteria no universal method has been adopted in allocating the marks of qualification and basic training as well as the academic qualification and the higher qualification has been made in such a manner that it has made the academic qualification totally irrelevant for the purpose of selection the criteria as such is totally arbitrary illegal and the selection made on the basis of this criteria is therefore liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the academic merit of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has outstanding merit in academic qualification but proper and the weight age has not been given to the academic qualification which has debarred the petitioner from getting an appointment under the State Government. One weight age to the matriculation and higher qualification along with technical qualification both being essential and eligibility criteria has not been given and the arbitrary criteria adopted by the official respondents has the effect of converting the merit of petitioner into demerit. 4. On 27.12.2006, this Court while entertaining the instant petition, issued notice to the respondents and showed indulgence by granting the interim relief that the impugned selection made by respondents shall be subject to outcome of the main writ petition. 5. Objections on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 have been filed wherein it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner has voluntarily participated in the selection process and has taken a chance. It is further stated that the petitioner at the time of submission of application form was 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy. Petitioner had obtained 41.12% marks in Matriculation, whereas, he had had secured 57.67% marks in Diploma in Pharmacist course. The petition is admitted to the extent of issuance of Advertisement Notification and the petitioner had submitted his application form which was entertained and the petitioner was considered in the selection process. Petitioner had obtained 41.12% marks in Matriculation, whereas, he had had secured 57.67% marks in Diploma in Pharmacist course. The petition is admitted to the extent of issuance of Advertisement Notification and the petitioner had submitted his application form which was entertained and the petitioner was considered in the selection process. It is further stated that based on his merit, petitioner was short listed for interview and was thereafter interviewed along with other eligible candidates. The performance of the petitioner in the interview was adjudged by the Selection Committee and as per assessment of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was awarded 13 points out of 20 points in the viva voce. It is further contended that the selection in question has been made on the basis of selection criteria, which had been applied uniformly to all the eligible candidates, who participated in the selection process. For ready reference, the selection criteria is reproduced hereunder: Weight-age to Diploma in Pharmacist Course 50 points Weight-age to Matric 25 ponts Weight-age to Addl. Qualification 10+2 03 points Weight-age to Addl. Qualification Graduation 02 points Viva voce 20 points Total 100 points 6. On the basis of the criteria reproduced above, the merit of the petitioner was assessed and it was found that petitioner secured 55.12 points in the Open Category, whereas the candidate last selected in the open Category secured 58.75 points. It is further stated that while short listing same criteria minus 20 points earmarked for viva voce, was applied and the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 were short listed for interview. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the case file. 8. In present case, petitioner has participated in selection process with definite knowledge about methodology to be adopted by official respondents for selection of posts of Pharmacists vide advertisement no.6 of 2004 dated 29.9.2004. He could not succeed; now he is estopped from challenging the selection process. Had he been selected, he could not have challenged the same. Mere fact that petitioner was short-listed, it does not confer any right to selection. 9. Apex court in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8345-8346 of 2009 in case titled D. SAROJAKUMARI Vs. R. HELEN THILAKOM & Ors. decided on 13.9.2017, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4582 , it is held as under :- 4. Mere fact that petitioner was short-listed, it does not confer any right to selection. 9. Apex court in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8345-8346 of 2009 in case titled D. SAROJAKUMARI Vs. R. HELEN THILAKOM & Ors. decided on 13.9.2017, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4582 , it is held as under :- 4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that Respondent No.1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. 5. In Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 , the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows :- “15.We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection (1976) 3 SCC 585 Committee. 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……” 6. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows :- “9…….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. This Court held as follows :- “9…….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 Selection Committee was not properly constituted……” 7. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court held as follows :- “23…….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 (1995) 3 SCC 486 (2010) 12 SCC 576 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.” 8. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general Rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows :- “24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted 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 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.” 9. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 10. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 10. The Kerala High Court did not note the above mentioned judgments and ignored the well settled position of law in rejecting the specific plea raised by the appellant herein that the appellant could not raise the issue that no direct recruitment should have been conducted once she had applied for and taken part in the selection process by direct recruitment. 11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised. 12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25.07.2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition O.P.No.36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable. 10. In view of above, this petition is dismissed as having no merits.