JUDGMENT & ORDER : These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.874 of 2016 [Sri Utpal Choudhury vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.876 of 2016 [Sri Bijoy Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.877 of 2016 [Sri Samir Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.898 of 2016 [Sri Chandan Bhattacharji vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.901 of 2016 [Sri Nirmal Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.902 of 2016 [Sri Debesh Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.992 of 2016 [Sri Gopal Krishna Nandi vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.993 of 2016 [Sri Raju Majumder vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.994 of 2016 [Sri Sukanta Datta vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2016 [Sri Rajesh Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1021 of 2016 [Sri Ajoy Paul vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1022 of 2016 [Sri Tapas Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1025 of 2016 [Sri Rajesh Saha vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1026 of 2016 [Sri Bikash Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1027 of 2016 [Sri Bimal Ch. Sarkar vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1206 of 2016 [Sri Sidhartha Sarkar vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1209 of 2016 [Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1328 of 2016 [Smt. Swarupa Datta vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.34 of 2017 [Sri Ranjit Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.534 of 2017 [Sri Bikash Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.535 of 2017 [Sri Rupan Sarkar vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.695 of 2017 [Sri Dipankar Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.696 of 2017 [Sri Sushanta Ghosh vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.697 of 2017 [Sri Suman Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.698 of 2017 [Sri Dhruba Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.713 of 2017 [Sri Shaktimoy Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.714 of 2017 [Sri Tinku Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1072 of 2017 [Sri Biswajit Das vs. State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.1073 of 2017 [Sri Binoy Kanti Das vs. State of Tripura & Others] and W.P.(C) No.1074 of 2017 [Sri Dhruba Biswas vs. State of Tripura & Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as, the petitioners have applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk [LDC in short] or Tehsildar or Surveyor or Amin or Moharar in terms of the advertisement and appeared in the walk-in-interview between 10 am to 4 pm as per the schedule provided hereunder: No. Proposed Sub-Division area Date of Interview Place of Interview 1 Dharmanagar 20th & 21st July, 2015 DM Office Complex, Dharmangar 2 Panisagar 22nd & 23rd July, 2015 3 Kanchanpur 25th & 27th July, 2015 4 Kumarghat 31st July & 1st August, 2015 DM Office Complex, Unakoti 5 Kailashahar 4th & 5th August, 2015 6 Ambassa 10th & 11th August, 2015 P.R.T.I Building, Ambassa 7 Kamalpur 12th & 13th August, 2015 8 Gandachhara 17th August, 2015 9 Longtharai Valley 18th August, 2015 10 Belonia 21st and 22nd August, 2015 Town Hall, Belonia 11 Sabroom 25th & 26th August, 2015 12 Santirbazar 27th & 28th August, 2015 13 Udaipur 1st & 2nd Sept, 2015 Old Town Hall, Udaipur 14 Amarpur 3rd & 4th Sept, 2015 15 Karbook 7th Sept, 2015 16 Jampuijala 10th & 11th Sept, 2015 DCM Office, Bishramganj 17 Bishalgarh 14th & 15th Sept, 2015 18 Sonamura 16th & 17th Sept, 2015 19 Khowai 21st & 22nd Sept, 2015 Khowai R.D. Block Complex 20 Teliamura 23rd & 24th Sept, 2015 21 Jirania 28th, 29th & 30th Sept, 2015 Old Building of Umakanta Academy School 22 Mohanpur 1st, 3rd & 5th October, 2015 23 Sadar 6th, 7th & 8th October, 2015 2. It is admitted by the petitioners that they appeared in the said walk-in-interview and produced the copies of the testimonies with original documents. The said advertisement for walk-in-interview was published on 12.07.2014 for filling up the vacancies of LDC, Tehsildar, Surveyor, Amin and Moharar. These writ petitions are concerned with the selection and appointment in the post of LDC, Tehsildar, Surveyor, Amin and Moharar. As per the advertisement for the post of LDC, there were 95 vacancies. Out of those vacancies, 16 vacancies were allocated to be filled up by SC candidates, 28 vacancies were allocated to be filled up by ST candidates and 51 vacancies were allocated to be filled up by UR candidates. There were 247 vacancies of Tehsildar. Out of those, 48 vacancies were allocated to be filled up by SC candidates, 69 vacancies to be filled up by ST candidates and the remaining 130 vacancies were allocated to be filled by UR candidates. Out of the vacancies categorised reservation-wise, a sub-reservation was also declared by allocating 1 vacancy for SC-PH [Blindness or Low Vision], 2 for ST-PH [Hearing Impairment and Locomotor Disability or Cerebra-palsy each], 3 for UR-PH [Blindness or Low Vision, Locomotor Disability or Cerebra-palsy & Hearing Impairment each], 1 vacancy was shown to have allocated for the Ex-servicemen [ST], 1 another vacancy for Ex-servicemen [SC] and 2 vacancies out of the said category was shown to have allocated for Ex-serviceman[UR]. There were total 17 vacancies of Surveyor. Out of which, 3 vacancies were allocated for SC, 5 vacancies for ST and 9 vacancies for UR candidates. In this category, there was no allocation for physically handicapped or Ex-servicemen. There were 25 vacancies for Amin. Out of those, 4 vacancies were allocated for SC candidates, 8 vacancies for ST candidates and 13 vacancies for UR candidates. Under this category also, no reservation was declared for physically handicapped or Ex-servicemen. There were 18 vacancies for Moharar. Out of those, 3 vacancies were allocated for SC candidates, 6 for ST candidates and 9 for UR candidates. In this category also, there were no reservation for physically handicapped or Ex-servicemen candidates. It has been contended in all these writ petitions that the petitioners appeared before the Interview Board on the places as declared by the said notification issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, Revenue Department. In this category also, there were no reservation for physically handicapped or Ex-servicemen candidates. It has been contended in all these writ petitions that the petitioners appeared before the Interview Board on the places as declared by the said notification issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, Revenue Department. All the petitioners have approached this court after they found that they were not successful and the private respondents and others were successful. The reliefs as sought by these writ petitions are resembling. The petitioners have prayed to set aside the selection list and the consequential appointments of the private respondents and others and to proceed with a fresh selection process. In some of the writ petitions, Clause-III of the Memorandum under No.F.23(8)-GA(P&T)/14 dated 12.01.2015 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, containing the general employment has been referred for all the departments of the State Governments for selection of candidates by open interview for Group-C & D posts having contemplated to fill up by the direct recruitment. It is needless to say that all the vacancies, sought to be filled up by the said advertisement dated 12.07.2015, are to be filled up by direct recruitment and for that purpose, the said advertisement was issued. For reference, paragraphs/clause-3 of the memorandum dated 12.01.2015 is reproduced hereunder: “3. There may be a common Interview Board to be constituted by department concerned for selection of candidates from whole of the State. But if situation so demands due to district-wise or sub-divisional-wise distribution of posts for other policy reasons as the State Government may decide from time to time or for large number candidates from all over the State, the Board may constitute selection committees District-wise or Sub-Division wise. The advertisement in that respect shall explicitly mention the same. The selection made by the selection committee shall be consolidated by the State Board for preparing panel.” [Emphasis added] It has been also provided in paragraph/clause-4 of the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 that ‘to select the prospective candidates (Group-C and Group-D category posts) by Open Interview (viva-voce), the guidelines given below shall be strictly followed. The suitability of the candidate shall be evaluated out of 100 (hundred) marks. The suitability of the candidate shall be evaluated out of 100 (hundred) marks. The manner and head wise awarding of marks shall be by assessing the age, educational qualifications and knowledge on subject, intelligence, aptitude and interest on the field and sense on social commitment and co-curricular field (Culture, Sports etc.). Depending on the number of vacancies the concerned department may constitute State Board and where necessary, the Board may constitute district level and sub-divisional level selection committees. The Board or Selection Committee shall not be permanent bodies and shall dissolve after the selection process is complete.” It has been further provided in the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 as under: “5. Candidates shall be evaluated by the Oral Interview (Viva-voce) method. Marks to each candidate shall be awarded out of 100 (hundred) on the following points (elaborately demonstrated below under Category-1, Category-2, Category-3 and Category-4). (i) Age (ii) Education Qualifications (iii) General Knowledge i.e. (a) knowledge on subjects (b) Intelligence (c) Aptitude and interest on the field (d) sense on social commitment. (iv) Co-curricular field (culture, sports etc.) 6. In the exigencies of service the method of walk-in-interview may also be adopted. This method will exempt the requirement of inviting and processing written applications. But the method of walk-in-interview if adopted shall be given wide publicity. 7. The candidates having edge over the other candidate(s) in relation to age shall be given first priority on calculating the year, month and days and marks shall be provided accordingly. 8. The candidate having high marks compared to others in the examination as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules as minimum essential qualification shall be given marks accordingly. 9. General Knowledge of the candidate shall be assessed by the Interview board through viva voce/interaction with the candidate and shall be awarded marks as prescribed. The candidates securing higher marks after evaluation of General Knowledge shall be given first priority and marks accordingly. 10. Overall assessment of suitability of the candidates shall be made on the basis of total marks obtained/gained after evaluation of merit on prescribed heads and merit list/panel of names of the selected candidates shall be arrange accordingly.” [Emphasis added] 3. The reference has been made to the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 as there is no dispute that the selection was carried out in terms of the guidelines as provided in the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015. The reference has been made to the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 as there is no dispute that the selection was carried out in terms of the guidelines as provided in the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015. There is in existence, a separate procedural guidelines for the Group-C posts, other than the persons with disability inasmuch as separate guidelines have been provided in the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015. For purpose of reference, the procedure, as laid down by the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 for selection of candidates for Group-C posts other than the persons with disability the general standard of assessment, has been laid down in the said memorandum as under: “Selection of candidates for Group-C posts other than Persons with Disabilities. (i) 1(one) mark to be awarded to the candidates for each year since passing the examination (acquired minimum qualification) as prescribed for the post in the Recruitment Rules of that post or year (s) of waiting for job after passing the qualifying examination subject to a maximum of 20 marks. (ii) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate Educational Qualifications : 40 (a) 30%-44% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam = 14 Marks. (b) 45%-59% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam = 28 Marks. (c) 60% and above Marks obtained in qualifying Exam = 40 Marks. (iii) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate General Knowledge – 30 Marks (a) Knowledge on subject to be evaluated out of = 7 Marks (b) Intelligence to be evaluated out of = 8 Marks (c) Aptitude and interest on the field to be evaluated out of = 7 Marks (d) Sense of Social Commitment to be evaluated out of = 8 Marks (iv) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate in co-curricular field (Culture, Sports etc.) = 10 Marks.” 4. Before appreciating the grounds for challenging the said selection process and the averments in support of the reliefs prayed in the writ petitions, it would be apposite to lay down the essential, preferential and desirable qualification as sought by the said advertisement for those 5[five] posts. It can be gathered from the advertisement itself. The required qualifications for the said posts as reflected in the said advertisement dated 12.07.2015 which are after scrutiny have been confirmed as the qualification in terms of the recruitment rules for those posts are formed in the table reproduced below: Sl. No. Name of the Posts Qualification 1. It can be gathered from the advertisement itself. The required qualifications for the said posts as reflected in the said advertisement dated 12.07.2015 which are after scrutiny have been confirmed as the qualification in terms of the recruitment rules for those posts are formed in the table reproduced below: Sl. No. Name of the Posts Qualification 1. LDC Madhyamik/H.S. Passed or its equivalent examination. Knowledge of typing in English with minimum speed of 30 words per minute. Having knowledge of operating computer and a certificate from recognized institute. 2. Tehsildar H.S. Passed from recognized Board. Having knowledge of operating computer and a certificate from recognized institute. Knowledge of Bengali language or any Tribal language of Tripura. 3. Surveyor H.S. Passed from recognized Board with certificate of Surveyorship. Having knowledge of operating computer and a certificate from recognized institute. Knowledge of Bengali language or any Tribal language of Tripura. 4. Amin H.S. Passed from recognized Board. Preference to be given who have passed 2(two) years course in Survey/Draftsmanship. Having knowledge of computer operating with certificate from any recognized institute. Knowledge of Bengali language or any Tribal language of Tripura. 5 Moharar Madhyamik or equivalent having minimum typing speed of 30 words per minute in English. Preference will be given to persons whose hand writing is good. 5. For purpose of laying the context of the challenge, the facts which create differentials are that all the petitioners did not apply for the posts of LDC, Tehsildar, Surveyor, Amin or in combination thereof. There are candidates who have applied for one post and there are candidates for the combination of the posts if they were covered by the qualifications. It would be appropriate to indicate by giving the number of writ petitions and the name of the writ petitioners who had applied for those posts, post or combination of posts. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.874 of 2016 [Sri Utpal Choudhury] appeared in the walk-in-interview for combination of the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin and thus, he participated in the selection process for those 3 posts as a UR candidate on 25.10.2015 and on 26.10.2015 in the Belonia Town Hall. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.874 of 2016 [Sri Utpal Choudhury] appeared in the walk-in-interview for combination of the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin and thus, he participated in the selection process for those 3 posts as a UR candidate on 25.10.2015 and on 26.10.2015 in the Belonia Town Hall. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.876 of 2016 [Sri Bijoy Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for combination of the posts of LDC, Tehsildar and Moharar and thus, he participated in the selection process for consideration in the posts as a UR candidate on 23.09.2015 and on 24.09.2015 in the Khowai R.D. Block. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.877 of 2016 [Sri Samir Debbarma] appeared in the walk-in-interview for combination of the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin and thus, he participated in the selection process as an ST candidate on 23.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 in the Khowai R.D. Block. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2016 [Sri Chandan Bhattacharji] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin and thus, he participated in interview for selection process as a UR candidate on 01.09.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.901 of 2016 [Sri Nirmal Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 01.09.2015 at old Town Hall, Udaipur. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.902 of 2016 [Sri Debesh Debbarma] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an ST candidate on 21.09.2015 at of Town Hall, Udaipur. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.992 of 2016 [Sri Gopal Krishna Nandi] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 01.09.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.993 of 2016 [Sri Raju Majumder] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 29.09.2015 at Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.994 of 2016 [Sri Sukanta Datta] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 01.09.2015 at Town Hall, Belonia. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2016 [Sri Rajesh Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an ST candidate on 07.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2016 [Sri Rajesh Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an ST candidate on 07.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1021 of 2016 [Sri Ajoy Paul] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 07.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 2016 [Sri Tapas Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 12.08.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1021 of 2016 [Sri Ajoy Pal] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 07.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1025 of 2016 [Sri Rajesh Saha] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Moharar as a UR candidate on 06.10.2015, 17.10.2015 & 08.10.2015 at Old Building of Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1026 of 2016 [Sri Bikas Bhowmik] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Moharar as a UR candidate on 06.10.2015, 07.10.2015 & 08.10.2015 at Old Building of Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1027 of 2016 [Sri Bimal Chandra Sarkar] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 14.09.2015 & 15.09.2015 in the DCM Office, Bishramganj. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1206 of 2016 [Sri Sidhartha Sarkar] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 29.09.2015 at Old Building of Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1209 of 2016 [Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 28.09.2015 at Old Building of Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1328 of 2016 [Smt. Swarupa Datta] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of LDC & Tehsildar as a UR candidate on 06.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34 of 2017 [Sri Ranjit Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 16.09.2015 at DCM Office, Bishramganj. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.534 of 2017 [Sri Bikash Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 16.09.2015 at DCM Office, Bishramganj. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.534 of 2017 [Sri Bikash Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 16.09.2015 at DCM Office, Bishramganj. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.535 of 2017 [Sri Rupan Sarkar] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 07.10.2015 at Old Building of Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.695 of 2017 [Sri Dipankar Chakraborty] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 06.10.2015 at Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.696 of 2017 [Sri Sushanta Ghosh] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 16.10.2015 at Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.697 of 2017 [Sri Suman Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 16.10.2015 at Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.698 of 2017 [Sri Dhruba Bhowmik] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 16.10.2015 at Umakanta Academy, Agartala. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.713 of 2017 [Sri Shaktimoy Debbarma] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an ST candidate on 21.09.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.714 of 2017 [Sri Tinku Debbarma] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an ST candidate on 01.10.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1072 of 2017 [Sri Biswajit Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 16.09.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1073 of 2017 [Sri Binoy Kanti Das] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as an SC candidate on 03.09.2015. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1074 of 2017 [Sri Dhruba Biswas] appeared in the walk-in-interview for the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin as a UR candidate on 03.09.2015. 6. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel, Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel along with Mr. 6. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel, Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel along with Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A., Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A., Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel and Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the state-respondents and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel, Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel, Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel, Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel, Mr. B. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel, Ms. S. Das, learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel, Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel, Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel, Mr. R. Pal, learned counsel, Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel, Mr. A. Das, learned counsel and Mr. D.J. Saha, learned counsel appearing for some of the private respondents. 7. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the entire selection process has turned to be mockery for dismal lack of the fairness in the state action. A minimal time has been spent for interviewing each of the candidates. If the total time is divided by the number of candidates interviewed in a day, it would come to one and half minute per candidate. The basis of such submission is the notified day and time, but there is no reliable survey. This statement thus falls in the category of ‘unverified’ general statement. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are having better comparative merit but by manipulation of the process, the persons with the lesser merit have been accommodated. As it is apparent that there is no written examination, the merit was assessed by the marks secured in the public examinations or experience gathered in the formal training or by field training. Even the applications were received on the very day of the interview. Mr. As it is apparent that there is no written examination, the merit was assessed by the marks secured in the public examinations or experience gathered in the formal training or by field training. Even the applications were received on the very day of the interview. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that, so far the recruitment relating to the posts of Tehsildar, Surveyor and Amin are concerned, the practical field training as the Surveyor and the certificate issued by the Regional Survey Training Institute [RSTI in short] were not taken into consideration-which itself shows that interview was an eye wash. That apart, for holding walk-in-interview, there was no exigencies. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the marks were not allotted in the selection, in terms of the guidelines dated 12.01.2015 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition being W.P(C) No.874 of 2016]. Having confronted that after participating in the process which is well adverted and after waiting for its outcome whether the petitioners can be permitted to question the said selection. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has relied initially on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Geeta Sharma vs. DAV College Managing Committee & others [judgment and order dated 16.07.2013 delivered in CWP No.2609 of 2013] where Punjab and Haryana High Court had occasion to observe thus: “the rule of ‘estoppel’ is intended to be applied to unscrupulous litigants who attempt to take benefit in all situations i.e. firstly by participating without any reservation and then after having failed, make a challenge. In some cases without participation in the selection process it is impossible for a candidate to know the illegality Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.06 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2609 of 2013 [12] or irregularity, biased or arbitrariness committed during the process of selection. If in every case, the principle of estoppels is applied, no candidate will be able to challenge the selection despite the fact that there are established violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In case a person opts to stay away from the selection process and challenge the selection on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution, he would loose half the battle merely on the ground that he opted to stay away from the selection. In case a person opts to stay away from the selection process and challenge the selection on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution, he would loose half the battle merely on the ground that he opted to stay away from the selection. In that situation, the principle of estoppels will not operate against him, in case he challenges the selection process or the selections being arbitrary. It is not an absolute rule of law that in all cases where the candidate had participated in the selection process, he would be debarred to challenge the selection. The facts and circumstances of each case are be seen while applying the ratio of the judgments in Madan Lals case (supra) and Dhanajay Malik’s case (supra).” [Emphasis added] 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that when there is arbitrariness, in contrast to the fairness action as espoused under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if revelation made later, the further action cannot be stopped. Someone can challenge the action of the state which is tainted by arbitrariness. A decision of the apex court has been pressed in this regard in Munindra Kumar & others Vs. Rajib Govil & others, reported in (1991) 6 SCC 368. In Munindra Kumar (supra) the apex court has observed that the person who had full knowledge of the percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion participated in the selection process, there cannot be any amount of doubt that they cannot be also estopped for challenging the rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But in moulding the relief their conduct and equities of those who have been selected are relevant for consideration. Though Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has not referred the final conclusion drawn in the said judgment, it would be apposite to refer that the result of the selection process was not ordered and even some candidates who did not participate in all the phases of the interview, were selected. In that background, the apex court interfered the selection process. Reference has also been made to Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 , to rely on the observation of the apex court that no estoppel can operate against the fundamental rights under the constitution. In that background, the apex court interfered the selection process. Reference has also been made to Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 , to rely on the observation of the apex court that no estoppel can operate against the fundamental rights under the constitution. Even though Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 172 has been relied by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel but the context of that case was entirely different as would be apparent from Para-13 where the apex court has observed that the criteria for merit was changed subsequently, meaning after the applications were received. ‘Consequently, no candidate had any occasion to protest since the criterion was abruptly changed by the State Government. Thus, the Division Bench overruled the objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions by taking the view that there was no question of estoppel and the candidates who had applied and were not selected could not be said to be estopped from challenging the process of selection, nor could there be any plea of promissory estoppel invoked by the writ petition, as nothing was established to show that they had altered their position to their detriment by applying pursuing to the advertisement. In our view, the finding of the Division Bench on this point is justified.’ 9. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that in Raj Kumar & others vs. Shakti Raj & others, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the apex court has clearly laid down the laws having examined Madanlal vs. State of J & K : (1995) 3 SCC 486 , in the manner as under: “.......It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J & K : (1995) 3 SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of Selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case.” [Emphasis added] 10. In furtherance of the assertion that the petitioners are not estopped for challenging the selection process in terms of the advertisement for walk-in-interview, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.874 of 2016, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has made reference to Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar & others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 . True it is that in Ashok Kumar, Raj Kumar (supra) has reconsidered the precedents and observed as under: “20. The decision in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj : (1997) 9 SCC 527 (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.” 11. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appeared for a set of the writ petitioners who had appeared in the selection process for the posts of Amin, Surveyor and Tehsildar. The petitioners, whom Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel have represented in W.P.(C) No.901/2016, W.P.(C) No.902/2016, W.P.(C) No.898/2016, W.P.(C) No.1209/2016, W.P.(C) No.1206/2016 and W.P.(C) No.34/2017 had two years’ surveyorship certificate and 6 months’ RSTI certificates. But the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.534 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.535 of 2017 had four months’ RSTI certificate. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has referred to the recruitment rules, the relevant part of which has been provided in the said advertisement and extracted hereinabove. The relevant part has been shown in the table, formed below Para-5 of this judgment. For the post of Surveyors, there is requirement of the certificate of surveyorship. But for the post of Amin, it has been provided that ‘preference’ will be given to those who have passed two years course in survey/draftsmanship. 12. Ms. The relevant part has been shown in the table, formed below Para-5 of this judgment. For the post of Surveyors, there is requirement of the certificate of surveyorship. But for the post of Amin, it has been provided that ‘preference’ will be given to those who have passed two years course in survey/draftsmanship. 12. Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners has submitted that a set of the writ petitioners have the adequate qualifications and good handwriting but they were not selected in the walk-in-interview contrary to their expectation and the rules. Ms. Dhar, learned counsel, as she had appeared for some of the petitioners who applied for the post of the Moharar, has adopted the submission of the learned counsel of the other sets of the writ petitioners on lack of transparency and fairness. By and large, the grounds projected by Ms. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners are the same in relation to those were raised by the learned counsel for the other sets of the petitioners. 13. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has supported the contention of Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for a set of the writ petitioners on the aspect of estoppel. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that no preference has been shown to the petitioners, whereas such preference ‘has been shown to the private respondents.’ The respondents have filed the assessment sheets, but the petitioners could not locate how the private respondents were favoured, either in deviation to the process or on observance of the espoused policy. By the Government Policy, the walk-in-interview has been declared as a valid process. The petitioners have adverted only about the process. They, without raising any reservation and demur had participated in the selection process. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that the entire selection process is arbitrary and such process has been adopted for manipulation. Thus, this court should interfere in the process. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel having referred to the memorandum dated 12.01.2015 [Para-6] has categorically stated that this provision is entirely against the constitutional mandate of selection. Para-6 of the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 does authorize to recruit, by means of walk-in-interview in the exigencies of service. In the said Para-6 of the memorandum it has been clearly observed that ‘this method will exempt the requirement of inviting and processing written applications. Para-6 of the said memorandum dated 12.01.2015 does authorize to recruit, by means of walk-in-interview in the exigencies of service. In the said Para-6 of the memorandum it has been clearly observed that ‘this method will exempt the requirement of inviting and processing written applications. But the method of walk-in-interview if adopted shall be given wide publicity.’ Having scrutinized all the writ petitions, this court does not find any informed challenge against the said Para-6 of the memorandum dated 12.01.2015. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has laid much emphasis for not appreciating the technical qualification of the surveyorship while making appointments in the posts of Amin and Surveyor. For the post of Amin, the recruitment rules clearly provides that preference to be given to the persons who have passed two years’ course in survey/draftsmanship. Though Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that no such preference has been provided, but the persons having no experience or training in surveyor/draftsmanship has been appointed. Be that as it may, that no records or illustrations could be made be by the petitioners whom Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel are representing. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that these are the gross violation of the recruitment rules and as such, the persons who have been appointed, they are not to be protected under equity. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that, since the espoused policy of preference was not followed, the entire process is liable to be declared invalid. 14. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1328 of 2016 has submitted that even the fairness process has been tweaked and bullied by the respondents. The said petitioner has the knowledge of typing and all other qualifications sought by the said advertisement. The petitioner appeared before the interview board and she was interviewed but the petitioner got ‘0’ marks in the extracurricular activities when she was entitled to get 10 marks. Thus, the petitioner has suffered serious detriment. Even the petitioner had applied for the post of Tehsildar, but no mark was given to the petitioner for the post of Tehsildar. When this court has scrutinized the averments, the said averment is not available that the petitioner has not been given any mark for the post of Tehsildar. Thus, the petitioner has suffered serious detriment. Even the petitioner had applied for the post of Tehsildar, but no mark was given to the petitioner for the post of Tehsildar. When this court has scrutinized the averments, the said averment is not available that the petitioner has not been given any mark for the post of Tehsildar. The petitioner had collected the assessment sheet and found that she secured only 7 marks in General Knowledge [G.K.] though she has passed B.Sc. Honours and secured First Division in Madhyamik Examination. It is really strange that how there can be any relation of getting lesser marks in General Knowledge [G.K.] with passing of the B.Sc. honours or securing first division marks in Madhyamik Examination. The petitioner has made some comparative assessment between the private respondents and the petitioner without any foundation. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has submitted that firstly, the entire process is arbitrary and secondly, the outcome is belying, the basic tenets of fairness. 15. From the other side, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General has appeared for the official respondents on making reference to the compilation sheet for the various posts as produced by the respondents or partly by the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners have utterly failed to show any glaring mistakes even though they have not left any stone unturned to show that the process was not fair. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has submitted that there is challenge in some of the writ petitions that the zonal interview is anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But the petitioners who raised that plea failed to refer that the final merit was determined by compilation by the appointing authority in the central level. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has candidly submitted that selecting the best from such huge participants is really a difficult and arduous task. There cannot be any mechanism which is foolproof. The state-respondents have taken all initiatives to fairly select the candidates in accordance the policy adopted by the State. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has stated that the policy which was followed has been struck down by this court not as a whole but for some clauses. The said judgment was pronounced after the selection was over. The particular clauses as extracted above were not questioned. Mr. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has stated that the policy which was followed has been struck down by this court not as a whole but for some clauses. The said judgment was pronounced after the selection was over. The particular clauses as extracted above were not questioned. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has strongly pleaded that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the outcome of the selection process on participating in the selection process knowing its method as the petitioners have miserably failed to show any arbitrariness or abrupt change in the process or any glaring illegality and hence, they are totally restricted by estoppel. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has referred to a decision of the apex court in Sadananda Halo and others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 where the apex court had occasion to dwell upon the method of interview in the following terms: “40. However, in Sardara Singh's case : (1991) 4 SCC 355, this Court specifically observed in para 6: “6......The selection is for the Patwaris in the class III service. The ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana : (1985) 4 SCC 417 has no application to the facts in the case. Therein the selection was to the Class I service of the State Service and sufficient time was required to interview each candidate. In this case, on calculation, we found that on an average three minutes were spent for each candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the Rules provides the qualifications, namely, pass in the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination; knowledge in Hindi and Punjabi upto the middle standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture. The educational qualifications are apparent from record and need no interview in this regard. It could be seen that candidates normally hailing from rural backgrounds had presumptively good knowledge of rural economy and culture. Therefore, there is no need for special emphasis to ascertain their knowledge of the rural economy or culture. Under those circumstances much time need not be spent on each candidate for selection except asking some questions on general knowledge and aptitude for work as Patwari etc.? The observations are extremely telling and need no further elaboration. In the present case the qualifications were known. Under those circumstances much time need not be spent on each candidate for selection except asking some questions on general knowledge and aptitude for work as Patwari etc.? The observations are extremely telling and need no further elaboration. In the present case the qualifications were known. The physical standards of each candidate were very much there before the interviewing Board and, therefore, in our opinion, there was no necessity to test the knowledge of maintenance of revenue records, rural economy and culture as was required for the post of Patwari. The merits of the candidates were also recorded regarding their physical efficiency. Therefore, even less than three minutes time was enough for each candidate. We would also have to give due credit to the expertise of Selection Committee. 41. The question of large number of candidates appearing for the selection process again came up before this Court in Joginder Singh and others v. Roshan Lal and others : (2002) 9 SCC 765 . A complaint was made in this case that 323 candidates appeared for the test in two days and on that basis a select list was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The High Court called this selection process as a farce on the ground that fair chance was never given to the candidates to show their worth. The Court observed in para 5 as under: “On the facts on record we see no justification for the High Court to have come to this conclusion. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to act as an appellate authority over the decision of the Departmental Selection Committee. If the Committee has been properly constituted, as in this case, and the post is advertised and a selection process known to law which is fair to all, is followed then the High Court could have no jurisdiction to go into a question whether the Departmental Selection Committee conducted the test properly or not when there is no allegation of malafides or bias against any member of the Committee. Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Normally experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Merely because only two days were spent in conducting the interviews for the selection of Class IV posts cannot lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper.” 42. To sum up, these were the interviews for the post of Constables and the minimum educational standard was prescribed as 7th class pass. There were no requirements of testing the administrative or management capacity of the candidates and/or any other quality which is required for the higher posts. All that was necessary was firstly to see their physical fitness in terms of physical endurance, their smartness in appearance and further to test their intelligence level as required for the post of constable including their general knowledge. We cannot ignore that thousands of candidates had turned up and what we find from the guidelines was, firstly these candidates had to fulfil physical standards in terms of height, etc. as also the minimum educational qualification. Obviously all the candidates could not have had those physical standards.” [Emphasis added] Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has emphatically submitted that in the writ jurisdiction a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible or to look into the mathematical exactness of appreciation. For this purpose, he has referred the following passages from Sadananda Halo (supra): “58. It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into a non permitted fact finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of the amicus curiae, or as the case may be, the scrutiny team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ petition and the say of the respondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an appellate tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification. 59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar & Ors, (2007) 8 SCC 100 where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party. This was a case where different cut off marks were fixed for the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. This Court in para 10 of its judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that there was a power in the employer to fix the cut off marks which power was neither denied nor disputed and further that the cut off marks were fixed on a rationale basis and, therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. : 1986 Supp. SCC 285 where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect: [Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar : (2007) 8 SCC 100 ] 19......34. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect: [Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar : (2007) 8 SCC 100 ] 19......34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process. In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the court did not go into those exceptions since the same were not material. 60. In our opinion the first basic thing for such a selection process would be the lack of bona fides or, as the case may be, malafide exercise of powers by those who were at the helm of selection process. Both the courts below have not recorded any finding that they found any malafides on the part of any of the State officials who headed the interviews. On the other hand the tenor of the judgments shows that the whole process did not suffer from malafides, lack of bonafides, bias or political interference. In Union of India & Others vs. Bikash Kumar: (2006) 8 SCC 192 this Court observed in para 14 thus: “14. When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice.? 61. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice.? 61. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision in Raj Kumar & Others v. Shakti Raj & Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 seems to have found an exception to this Rule and has more particularly relied on the observation made in para 16 to the following effect: “16....But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” We do not think that this case is apposite for the present controversy. In the reported decision the court found a clear cut breach of the 1955 Rules. It also found that the names, though were required to be called from the employment exchange, were not so called. The Court also found fault with the procedure involved. We are afraid such is not the case in the present situation. No deviation from the rules or no inherent defect in the selection process which would render the whole selection illegal have either been alleged or proved. 62. We have already shown in the earlier part of our judgment that there were proper advertisements issued and reasonable procedure was chalked out in the earlier meetings held by the authorities, even the guidelines were defined and the interviews proceeded along those guidelines. A mere expression of doubts only on the ground of large number of candidates appearing and their not being objectively and properly tested without any further material, in our opinion, cannot by itself render the whole selection process illegal.” [Emphasis added] 16. Mr. A mere expression of doubts only on the ground of large number of candidates appearing and their not being objectively and properly tested without any further material, in our opinion, cannot by itself render the whole selection process illegal.” [Emphasis added] 16. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has submitted specifically that the procedure of selection was clearly laid down in the advertisement for walk-in-interview [Annexure-P/1 of W.P.(C) No.874 of 2016] and all the writ petitioners being aware of the process appeared and waited till the select list was published. When they found they were not selected, they started filing the writ petitions questioning the very process. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has contended that the writ petitioners are estopped now to challenge the outcome of the process as they participated in the process without any demur. He has relied a very recent decision in Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 where the apex court having considered Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla : 1986 Supp. SCC 285 and Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar : (2010) 12 SCC 576 , has reiterated the position of law that having taken part in the process of selection knowingfully well how the process would be conducted the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. If the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list he would not even dreamed of challenging the selection. Only when the petitioners have found that their names do not figure in the merit list they invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The apex court has held that in that report: ‘the conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection’. That apart, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has relied on Ashok Kumar (supra) to make the position of law clear as to when the principle of Raj Kumar (supra) would apply. He has submitted that Ashok Kumar (supra) has clearly laid down that unless there is a glaring arbitrariness or violation of law, the selection process can hardly be challenged. The petitioners in this case were also clearly on notice how the selection process would be carried out. Without any demur, they had participated in the selection process and they could not locate any glaring or patent illegality in the process. The petitioners in this case were also clearly on notice how the selection process would be carried out. Without any demur, they had participated in the selection process and they could not locate any glaring or patent illegality in the process. So far the assessment of comparative merits is concerned it is in the domain or prerogative of the interview board. If there were any specific allegation against them [the members of the selection board committee] they should have been made party in the proceeding. On making sweeping comments without concrete materials the petitioner cannot achieve the relief as prayed for, as it has been observed in Ashok Kumar (supra) as under: “19. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process took place that written examination would carry ninety marks and the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the impugned judgment [(Anurag Verma vs. State of Bihar : LPA No.1991 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2011(pat)] that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from vagueness. There was, in other words, no glaring or patent illegality in the process adopted by the High Court. There was an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90:10 allocation.” [Emphasis added] 17. Finally, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners have approached this court with unclean hands when the petitioners have stated that the zone-wise was interview and selection was carried out. On the basis of a structured module the interview boards conducted the interviews in various parts of the State and later on the marks on various heads were compiled for purpose of inter se merit list for the entire state and on the basis of the said merit list, the selections were made. That apart, the persons who were recommended for the recruitment for the post as adverted have already been appointed. In the writ petitions the petitioners should have disclosed all the material facts but they have not done so. That apart, the persons who were recommended for the recruitment for the post as adverted have already been appointed. In the writ petitions the petitioners should have disclosed all the material facts but they have not done so. Even the letters of appointments are not challenged in any manner. The apex court in Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3297 has clearly observed as under: “53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with ‘unclean hands’ and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. 54. In Dalglish v. Jarvie [2 Mac. & G. 231, 238], the Court, speaking through Lord Langdale and Rolfe B., laid down: “It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward.” The court is abhorrent of such practice. In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 , the apex court has further crystallised the law on consideration of the precedents as under: “10. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others : (2009) 3 SCC 141 .” 18. Finally, Mr. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others : (2009) 3 SCC 141 .” 18. Finally, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, while refuting the interpretation of preference on the basis of 6(six) months’ certificate issued by the RSTI or 2(two) years’ certificate of surveyorship for the post of Surveyor, Amin and Tehshildar as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that in the service jurisprudence how the preference to apply is no more res integra. The apex court has enunciated the law very categorically. In State of U.P. & another vs. Om Prakash and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 472, the apex court has observed as under: “16. This Court has consistently held that when selection is made on the basis of merit assessed through the competitive examination and interview, preference to additional qualification would mean other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those having additional qualification would be preferred. It does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability. 17. In Secy.(Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri : (1996) 6 SCC 282 , this Court held that preferential qualification do not as of right entitle to selection. In that case the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Dental Officers prescribed B.D.S. as the minimum qualification but stipulated preference for higher dental qualification. This Court held at SCC p.285-86, para 7 as under:- “7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that preference should he given for higher dental qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post and the Respondent No. 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. In adjudging the suitability of a person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is going to be held; his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course of interview, extra-curriculum activities like sports and other allied subjects personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent No. 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed.” 18. This Court again considered the same question in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu : (2003) 5 SCC 341 and held at SCC p.348, para 10 as under:- “The word "preference" in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. This Court again considered the same question in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu : (2003) 5 SCC 341 and held at SCC p.348, para 10 as under:- “The word "preference" in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. Hence, it is to be construed not in an isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. The procedure for selection in the case involves a qualifying test, a written examination and an oral test or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all-round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only, what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The 'preference' envisaged in the rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission, on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority merit wise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection". [Emphasis added] 19. Mr. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection". [Emphasis added] 19. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, therefore, contended that on the basis of the essential qualification and the assessment in the selection process, if 2(two) candidates are positioned equal, then the person who has been possessing the preferential qualification would be preferred for selection. It would not add any weightage in the selection except in the manner as stated in Om Prakash (supra). 20. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have adopted the submissions of learned Advocate General on the question of the maintainability of the writ petitions and on enunciation of ‘preference’. As such, this court having regard to brevity will not specifically record their submissions. 21. Having scrutinized the records and appreciated the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, 3(three) pertinent questions have emerged for consideration of this court. Those are (i) whether the court can make a roving inquiry to find out the illegality or perfunction in the process, unless glaring illegalities or unfairness are pleaded and proved by the petitioners who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether in regard to applying the preference as provided in the recruitment rules any illegality has been committed or there are any record in support of that illegality and (iii) whether the writ petitioners are estopped by their conduct to maintain these writ petitions after participating in the process with full knowledge how the process would be conducted and finding that they were not selected particularly when there is no abrupt change in the process beyond their knowledge? 22. In Sadananda Halo (supra), the apex court has clearly restated the law that in such kind of writ petitions, a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court cannot embark on non-permitted fact finding exercise. It has been clearly laid down in Sadananda Halo (supra) that while testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved there is no room for microscopic inquiry and finding as such. The High Court cannot embark on non-permitted fact finding exercise. It has been clearly laid down in Sadananda Halo (supra) that while testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved there is no room for microscopic inquiry and finding as such. When the petitioners have failed to produce any records showing there was glaring deviation of the adverted procedure, there is no scope for further inquiry in the matter. Moreover, since a large number of candidates appeared for an interview on a single date it cannot itself render the recruitment process illegal. There is no allegation of mala fide on the part of the members of the interview board. There is no allegation of bias or favouratism. Almost in a similar circumstances, Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal and others vs. Chandra Kanta Ganguli [judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 delivered in MAT 949 of 2016] has held as under: “22. In the writ petition there is no allegation that proper notice was not issued for participation in the recruitment process. Equal opportunity was given to all to participate in the selection process. From the document at annexure 'R5' of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 it appears that certificates towards representation in school/club level sports and experience as NCC Cadet/Boy Scouts/NSS Guide/Civil Defence Volunteers were not insisted upon in respect of all the candidates who participated in the interview. The petitioner No.2 also did not have the said certificates but he was allowed to participate in the interview. Considering the nature of duty to be discharged, the candidates were judged on the basis of physique, alertness and smartness in appearance. Such selection ought not to have been found fault with in a mathematical manner. An expression of doubt only on the ground of large number of candidates appearing for an interview on a single date cannot by itself render the entire recruitment process held at the said police stations to be illegal. 23. In the pleadings there is no allegation of any malafide on the part of any of the State officials who were in the interview board. There is also no allegation of any bias or favouritism. 23. In the pleadings there is no allegation of any malafide on the part of any of the State officials who were in the interview board. There is also no allegation of any bias or favouritism. The recruitment process was set aside since it appeared to the learned Judge that it was an impossibility on the part of the selection committee to interview 1351 candidates at Sarenga police station and 875 candidates at Barikul police station respectively on a single date. Before arriving at such finding, the learned Judge did not perhaps, notice the contents of the order dated 28th April, 2016 in which it stood recorded that „the petitioner says that he participated in one of the group interviews with fifty persons being asked common questions and some persons being arbitrarily selected on such basis?. In the case of Sadananda Halo (supra) it has been observed that no bench mark can be set as regards the highest number of candidates to be interviewed on a single date. It depends upon the post for which such interview is conducted, the nature of duty attached to such post, the nature of test to be applied and other ground realities.” 23. It has been further observed by Calcutta High Court relying on Sadananda Halo (supra) that interference by the court is warranted only when there are oblique motives or there is miscarriage of justice. In Sadananda Halo (supra) the High Court set aside the recruitment process on the ground that more than 2000 candidates were called for an interview on a single day and as such, the selection was farcical. Taking into consideration of the principle laid down in Satpal vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 206 and Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 , the apex court had observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the recruitment process mechanically and in a mathematical manner by setting a benchmark that not more than 250 candidates ought to have been interviewed on a single day. It has been observed by the apex court that instated of testing the matter on the basis of the ground realities for each district on the basis of material made available by the state a mechanical approach could not have been taken by the High Court. It has been observed by the apex court that instated of testing the matter on the basis of the ground realities for each district on the basis of material made available by the state a mechanical approach could not have been taken by the High Court. Thus, there was interference unless serious illegality or high degree of extraneous consideration is located in the process, usually the court shall not interfere in the recruitment process. In view of the law as enunciated by the apex court, this court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to produce any materials to demonstrate glaring irregularities in the process as adverted or substantive illegality or high degree of extraneous intervention to manipulate the entire process. In such circumstances, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot step out for further inquiry or for a roving inquiry into the facts relating to the selection. 24. So far the appreciation of ‘preference’ for those who are having 2(two) years surveyorship certificates is concerned, this court does not find that any case has been made out where the petitioners or any one of them and the selected persons, for that matter the private respondents were equally positioned in respect of merit and despite the petitioners having the preferential qualification, the petitioners or any of them were denied the preferential treatment. As such, the law as laid down by the apex court in Om Prakash (supra) the ground as projected by the petitioners and its foundation is bereft of substance. No case has been made out to bulwark the tilt in favour of the petitioners or any one of them. 25. As regards, the final question in respect of the estoppel, this court does not have any hesitation to hold that the petitioners have consciously participated in the process having substantively informed and took chance to find out whether they were selected. When they found that they were not selected, they came to the court after selection of the private respondents or immediate thereafter their participation was without any reservation or any demur. In absence of gross or grave irregularities or extraneous intervention, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the outcome of the selection process in the manner they have challenged the selection. In absence of gross or grave irregularities or extraneous intervention, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the outcome of the selection process in the manner they have challenged the selection. By their conduct they have waived their right to challenge the selection process including the structured module in the aftermath of the discovery of their failure as in Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 it was enunciated by the apex court in clear terms 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.” [Emphasis added] 26. The cumulative result of those findings as above, is that there is no substance in these writ petitions for interference by this court and hence, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.