Judgment 01. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of respondent No.5 to the post of Physical Training Instructor (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘PTI’), Division Cadre, Jammu and also for a direction to the respondents to consequently appoint him to the said post of PTI Division Cadre, Jammu. 02. Brief facts which arise for consideration in this petition are that Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No.06 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005 vide which application were invited for selection to various posts which included the post of Assistant Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Division Cadre Jammu. The said post figured at Serial No.81 of the Advertisement Notice and three posts in total were advertised for Jammu Division though only one post in the Open Merit Category was advertised. The qualification which was prescribed for the said post was ‘Graduate with B.P.Ed. from recognized University’. 01. The petitioner being eligible and qualified applied for the said post in pursuance to the said notification, respondent No.2/Service Selection Board vide notification No.SSB/Div/J/2006/2166-74 dated 18.03.2006 notified the candidates who were shortlisted who had applied for the post of Assistant Physical Training Instructor (PTI). The petitioner was also shortlisted in terms of said notification. After completion of selection process and interview, select list was issued by the respondents on 19.12.2006 and respondent No.5 was selected in the Open Merit Category for the post of Assistant Physical Training Instructor. 02. Petitioner is aggrieved of selection of respondent No.5 on the ground that the petitioner was more meritorious should have been selected as he had participated and represented the J&K State from time to time in Junior and Senior National Competitions in Judos and this fact is evidence from Certificates of participation by Judo Federation of India, National Judo Championship in the year 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99 & 2000 and being all round performer in many games like Weight Lifting, Long Tennis, Cricket, Swimming, Rugby Football, Boxing, Hammer Throw, Hockey, possessing the requisite qualification and experience. Beside this, petitioner was Graduate (B. Sc.) and M.P.Ed and also having vast experience engaged as Assistant Sport Officer by Acharaya Shri Chander College of Medical Sciences & Hospital Sidhra and thereafter officiated in various supports culture and academic competition of All India Inter Medical College, Sport, Cultural & Academic Competition held at GMC Chandigarh, as such, more experience and therefore, was more meritorious than respondent No.5 and as such, should have been selected. 03. Thus, he is aggrieved of selection of respondent No.5 on the ground that the qualification of graduation was not given any weight-age and also that the criteria adopted for respondent No.5 while making selection was never disclosed or notified, as such, this has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and consequently, selection of respondent No.5 is unjust and arbitrary, as such, requires to be quashed. 03. Respondent No.2/Board has filed his objections and submitted that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner having voluntarily participated in the selection process and has taken chance cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection because the result of the selection was not palatable to him. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner as per his application form has stated that he was graduate having done Bachelor of Physical Education and Master in Physical Education and is outstanding Sportsman having participated in National Level. The qualification of the petitioner, thus, was given an adequate weight-age strictly in terms of Selection criteria. Selection criteria for the said post of Assistant Physical Training Instructor is as under:— (a) Graduation 25 points (b) B.P.Ed./B.P.E. 25 points (c) M. P.Ed. 10 points (d) Outstanding sports certificate (i) National 10 points } (ii) International 20 points } (e) Viva – Voce 20 points 04. After complying the aforesaid criteria, petitioner had secured only 57.44 points whereas respondent No.5 had secured 59.14 points, therefore, respondent No.5 having secured more merit than the petitioner has been selected for the said post. 05. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. In terms of the record, it appears that total weight-age of the petitioner in terms of qualification was 45.11 and total weight-age to respondent No.5 in terms of qualification was 46.14. 05. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. In terms of the record, it appears that total weight-age of the petitioner in terms of qualification was 45.11 and total weight-age to respondent No.5 in terms of qualification was 46.14. The petitioner has secured 12.33 marks whereas private respondent No.5 has secured 13 marks in the interview, therefore, the petitioner secured lesser merit than respondent No.5, has not been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Physical Training Instructor Divisional Cadre, Jammu. Thus, the petitioner having participated in the selection process and secured lesser merit cannot turn around and challenge the same being without any merit. 06. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2016 (1) SCC 454 titled Madras Institute of Development Studies & ors. versus K. Sivasubramaniyan & ors. in paragraph Nos.19 & 24, has held as under:— 21. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 , a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:- “15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go 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 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. 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. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal’s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:— “It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.” 24. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under:- “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 the 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.” “The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” 07. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” 07. Grievance has also been raised that the selection criteria adopted by the respondents for making selection was never disclosed and the respondents have by not disclosing the criteria has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 08. This Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that non-disclosure of the selection criteria would not cause any prejudice to a candidate, who has participated in the selection process and has been awarded marks according to the criteria. 09. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and since respondent No.5 was selected being more meritorious candidate, there is no merit in this petition, thus, the same is accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected IA(s) if any. 10. Record of the case be returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents.