JUDGMENT : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—Since, common questions of fact and the law are involved in all these petitions, therefore, same are being decided by way of a common order, infra. 02. The subject matter of all these writ petitions is the selection against 698 posts of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police (Executive Police, Armed Police and Telecommunication wing). 03. The facts, put in a nutshell, as these emerge from a study of the files under consideration, are that the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, issued an advertisement notice bearing No. Pers-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30th of December, 2016, wherein applications were invited for the post of Sub Inspector in Executive/ Armed wings of Jammu and Kashmir, Police in terms of the J&K Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 notified vide SRO 202 dated 30th of June, 2015. Being eligible, the petitioners responded to the same and subjected themselves to the Physical Test, Physical Endurance Test and Physical Standard Test. After qualifying the physical standard and other tests, the petitioners were allowed to appear in written examination (objective type). Thereafter, as stated, for the purposes of written examination, the respondents had, in all, set up 31 Centers throughout the State of Jammu and Kashmir, out of whom 16 centers had been fixed in Kashmir Valley and 15 in Jammu province. It is stated that the physical test was qualified by 16130 candidates, however, the written examination was taken by 15730 candidates. Thereafter, some of the petitioners herein were shortlisted for interview and some were dropped in written test. Finally, the respondents vide PHQ order No.6626 of 2018 dated 15th of December, 2018 issued the selection list, which is impugned herein all these petitions. 04. Mr Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners in SWP Nos. 3019/2018; 185/2019; and 884/2019, submits that from the Jammu Division, 8069 candidates appeared in the written test, from which 1525 candidates were shortlisted for interview and 466 candidates have been selected from Jammu division, thereby creating a doubt in the minds of the petitioners, who, thereafter, wanted to collect information about the conduct of examination in the whole Jammu Division. It is stated that the petitioners came to know that mass copying had taken place in various centers in connivance with the respondents so as to help the candidates who appeared in the examination, as a result 466 candidates from Jammu division got selected. It is stated that the petitioners came to know that mass copying had taken place in various centers in connivance with the respondents so as to help the candidates who appeared in the examination, as a result 466 candidates from Jammu division got selected. It is further submitted that the respondents deliberately and intentionally did not use the Biometric Attendance system in certain centers nor did they keep the CCTV footage available thereby resulting in violation of condition No.6 of the advertisement notice, and, therefore, as per the learned counsel, the whole selection process deserves to be struck down. It is pleaded that in case the selection of the selectees/private respondents is struck down, the petitioners herein will get automatically upgraded and selected against those posts. The learned counsel further pleads that the Additional Director General of Police, Mr A.K. Chaoudary, by communication dated 24th of April, 2019, directed the SSP, Jammu/ Srinagar to ensure that all the examination centers should have uninterrupted electric supply so that Biometric Attendance System for the candidates/ CCTV may be installed at each Center, however, the respondents failed to do so as no CCTV footage was kept available at various examination Centers in the Jammu division. It is also pleaded that the respondents have not only violated the relevant rules and regulations while conducting the process of selection, but they have also failed to follow the mandate of SRO 202, in terms whereof the selection against the non-gazetted post of Sub Inspector was to be made through the Services Selection Board, but, in the instant case, same was not done, thus, rendering the selection process void ab initio. The learned counsel has further proceeded to contend that in Jammu Division , out of 8069 candidates who appeared in the written test, 1525 were shortlisted for interview, whileas in the Kashmir zone, out of 8061 candidates, 615 were shortlisted for interview and that, finally, 466 candidates were selected from Jammu Division, whileas in Kashmir, including Ladakh Division, only 192 candidates were selected which ratio clearly shows that huge illegalities and frauds have been committed in the said selection process. 05. Mr Shah, the learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioners of SWP No. 1980/2018, submits that the respondents have not maintained any kind of transparency in the selection process in question as vital information has been withheld from the candidates. 05. Mr Shah, the learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioners of SWP No. 1980/2018, submits that the respondents have not maintained any kind of transparency in the selection process in question as vital information has been withheld from the candidates. It is submitted that going by the ratio of selection in the two divisions, i.e. Jammu and Kashmir, the entire selection process suffers from regional bias on the ground that never has it happened before that 1614 candidates have been selected only from one region in the respondent Police Department and that the selection process has been designed with a view to provide maximum employment to the candidates from Jammu Province in the Police Department as against deserving and suitable candidates from Kashmir province. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioners have been subjected to invidious discrimination. It is pleaded that CCTV Cameras had not been installed in four Centers at Jammu, viz. (i) Girls Higher Secondary School, Canal Road, Jammu; (ii) Higher Secondary School, Mubarak Mandi, Panjteerthi, Jammu; (iii) Ranbir Higher Secondary School, Parade, Jammu; and (iv) Women’s Polytechnic College, Shiv Nagar, Jammu and that majority of the candidates from these four Centers have been selected for interview, thereby casting serious doubts with regard to the transparency of the whole selection process It is contended that non-disclosure of merit position obtained by the candidates in the written test also renders the selection process in violation of the rules. 06. Mr Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, representing the official respondents, while resisting the averments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that for a total number of 698 vacancies (Executive/ Armed: 658 and Telecom: 40), a total number of 67347 candidates submitted their online application forms. It is stated that out of 67347 candidates who applied for the above quoted posts, only 44337 candidates appeared in Physical Endurance Test/ Physical Standard Test (PET/PST) across the State and 16547 candidates qualified Physical Endurance Test/ Physical Standard Test (PET/PST), but only 16130 (Jammu-8069 and Srinagar-8061) were found eligible for written examination who were, accordingly, through e-admit cards, called to appear in the written examination which was conducted on 24th of June, 2018 at Jammu/ Srinagar, wherein only 15416 candidates appeared in the written examination (Executive/ Armed and Telecom). Among these, 7875 candidates appeared from Jammu Division and 7270 candidates appeared from Kashmir Division, whereas the rest 714 candidates (2060 candidates of Executive/ Armed + 121 of Telecommunication wing) have been shortlisted for Viva-voce/ Personality Assessment Test for the post of Sub Inspector in J&K Police which is a State cadre post. Out of these 2181 candidates, 1525 candidates (1446 candidates of Executive/ Armed + 79 candidates of Telecommunication wing) belong to Jammu province and 656 candidates (614 candidates of Executive/ Armed + 42 of Telecommunication wing) belongs to Kashmir Province. It is further submitted that out of 1525 candidates shortlisted for Viva-Voce/ Armed + 21 of Telecommunication wing) were selected from Jammu Province and out of 656 candidates (614 candidates of Executive/ Armed + 21 of Telecommunication wing) were selected from Kashmir province. It is submitted that the selection process called in question by the petitioners in these petitions was completely transparent and that the Police Recruitment Board has not made any manipulation in any manner as the entire process of recruitment was technologically driven with minimum human intervention. It is stated that examination Centers were covered under CCTV/ Videography and, in order to ensure utmost transparency in the process of conduct of written examination, sufficient supervisory staff, including Officers of the Rank of SSPs, Dy. SPs, were deployed at all the examination Centers as Controller of Examination, Centre Superintendents, Hall Supervisors and Invigilators, respectively, for smooth conduct of written examination. Besides this, it is stated that all Board Members were also assigned the duties of Observers at all Centers on the date of examination, as such, the question of manipulation and fraud does not arise at all. It is pleaded that the claim of the petitioners regarding majority of the candidates with code No.1171111 having been allotted same Centre and most of the candidates with same code having been selected is not understandable because all the candidates of Jammu province had appeared in written examination in examination Centers established in Jammu District only. It is pleaded that the claim of the petitioners regarding majority of the candidates with code No.1171111 having been allotted same Centre and most of the candidates with same code having been selected is not understandable because all the candidates of Jammu province had appeared in written examination in examination Centers established in Jammu District only. It is also submitted that the Roll numbers with code No.1171111 were allotted to all the candidates who had applied from District Jammu and, similarly, other candidates who had applied from other Districts were allotted Roll numbers with different codes District wise and that the candidates of Jammu District with roll No. having code 1171111 have been distributed in all the (15) Centers earmarked for the written examination. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General pleads that the seating plan of all the candidates was arranged in the order of Roll numbers depending upon the capacity of each center and that appearing candidates were allotted Roll numbers at the time of conduct of Physical Endurance Test which were, subsequently, carried on till further stages of recruitment. It is further contended that as per the records many other examination Centers at Jammu have more percentage of candidates shortlisted for Viva-Voce/ Personality Assessment Test and the average percentage of shortlisted candidates from Jammu province is 19.21%, whileas the percentage of shortlisted candidates at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Mubarak Mandi, Jammu and Government College for Women, Parade Jammu, is less than the average percentage. It is further pleaded that the recruitment for the post of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police was outsourced to a private/ independent implementing agency in view of J&K Police having completely switched over to Transparent Recruitment Process (TRP). All the stages of the instant recruitment process, as stated, were technologically driven with minimum human intervention as a result all the stages of Physical Endurance Test (PET)/ Physical Standard Test (PST) were covered under CCTV coverage and the candidates were subjected to proper identification in order to avoid any impersonation. It is further stated that all the centers earmarked for written examination were covered under CCTV coverage/ video graphed, as such, all the events were properly recorded and that the Crime Branch of J&K Police had also deputed sufficient number of cameramen for conducting videography of different events at the examination centers. It is further stated that all the centers earmarked for written examination were covered under CCTV coverage/ video graphed, as such, all the events were properly recorded and that the Crime Branch of J&K Police had also deputed sufficient number of cameramen for conducting videography of different events at the examination centers. It is contended that the examination Centre, namely, Government Higher Secondary School Mubarak Mandi, Jammu, was not covered under CCTV due to board examination at the said center on 23rd of June, 2018 and the concerned authorities refused to install CCTV in the said center for the reason that for laying of cables and installation/ testing minimum 24 hours are required to cover the examination center, resultantly, the said center was covered through complete videography. It is pleaded that the question papers provided to the appearing candidates had series system, i.e. A, B, C & D, as such, the allegations of alleged mass copying is not otherwise possible. It is further submitted that the allegations are concocted and afterthought as no such issue or allegation was leveled by any of the candidates after conducting of written examination, however, feeling aggrieved of their non-selection, they have leveled these false and frivolous allegations. It is further submitted that the Biometric Attendance System was installed at all the centers of written examination, however, due to time consuming process and heavy rush of candidates at the same time, all the candidates were not brought under Biometric Attendance System and the identity of some of the candidates was ascertained with the help of valid ID proof, admit cards and attendance sheets on which thumb impressions of the candidates were also taken as equivalent to that being conducted through Biometric Attendance System in order to avoid impersonation or doubtful identity. The Invigilating staff cross checked each candidate in order to make sure that no impersonation whatsoever shall take place and the allegations of the petitioners are figment of their imaginations and same have been made/ alleged to create suspicion in the eyes of the Court to make out a false and baseless case. The Invigilating staff cross checked each candidate in order to make sure that no impersonation whatsoever shall take place and the allegations of the petitioners are figment of their imaginations and same have been made/ alleged to create suspicion in the eyes of the Court to make out a false and baseless case. It is stated that frisking points were installed at the entry points of all the examination centers where strict vigil was being maintained in order to disallow any electronic gadget inside the Hall; sufficient manpower was deployed by SSP, Jammu and SSP, Security Jammu for the purpose of frisking of all the candidates. It is submitted that the post of Sub Inspector in J&K Police is a State Cadre post and there was no bar for candidates to participate in recruitment process away from their district of domicile and that the Centers were allotted as per address shown on the online application form filled by the candidates. It is stated that during documentation, some variation with regard to residence of certain candidates was found and, accordingly, deficiency was notified for rectification in their recruitment records after following due procedures. The said candidates, as stated, could not be disqualified from the selection on mere variation in their address provided by them in their online application forms for the reason of them being State subjects having Permanent Resident Certificate and that the authenticity/ verification of the same would be done before issuing an appointment order as any selection was always subject to verification report. It is contended that the recruitment for police personnel, being technical in nature and involves special procedures to be adopted including physical endurance tests so as to select the candidates who are capable of becoming efficient police officials and the same can be gauged/ examined by the expert senior police officers keeping in mind the field requirements and responsibilities, as such, the Government constituted special recruitment board for selection of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police and the candidates so selected are governed under the conditions laid down in SRO 202 dated 30th of June, 2015. It is stated that in order to conduct the written examination in fair and smooth manner, sufficient number of officers/ other staff was deployed for conduct of written examination as per requirement of each center, both in Kashmir as well as in Jammu division. It is stated that in order to conduct the written examination in fair and smooth manner, sufficient number of officers/ other staff was deployed for conduct of written examination as per requirement of each center, both in Kashmir as well as in Jammu division. The said deployment was made without any malafide or extraneous considerations, however, in order to inform all the said Officers/ officials to report on the scheduled date, the said deployment order was issued on 9th of June, 2018 and no allegation was leveled against any Officer/ official either during conducting of written examination or even after that. However, as stated, when the selection list was made public and the petitioners did not find their places in the said list because of lesser merit, they have leveled the false and concocted allegations. It is submitted that the recruitment process has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and same was outsourced to a private firm, i.e. M/S Timing & Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. keeping in view that the J&K Police was switched over to Transparent Recruitment Policy (TRP). It is pleaded that all the stages were technologically driven with minimum human intervention and the candidates have been shortlisted for Viva-Voce/Personality Assessment test on the basis of marks secured in the written examination irrespective of the fact as to which place/ division the candidate belongs to. The candidates, as stated, who faced the viva-voce/ personality assessment test have been awarded marks as per their performance without any discrimination on the basis of region/ division. Finally, as stated, the selection list was prepared on the basis of marks secured in written examination and viva-voce/ personality assessment test. In the end, the respondents have prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 07. Mr Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, the learned senior counsel, representing some of the selectees/ private respondents, submits that the case projected by the writ petitioners essentially hinges on the ground that there has been fraud committed in the matter of conduct of written test. The allegations have been levelled by the petitioners only after they failed in the process of selection. It is submitted that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioners, in law, cannot, subsequently, turn around and question the selection process or the mode adopted by the Selection Committee. The allegations have been levelled by the petitioners only after they failed in the process of selection. It is submitted that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioners, in law, cannot, subsequently, turn around and question the selection process or the mode adopted by the Selection Committee. The petitioners have voluntarily appeared before the Interview Committee and have taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation, therefore, having done so, it is not now open to the petitioners to turn around and challenge the process of conduct of written test only on the ground that the petitioners did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance, both at written test and/or the interview. Learned senior counsel submits that it is trite that once the candidate takes a deliberate chance and participates in the process of selection, only because the result is not palatable to him, the candidate cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process has been unfair. The conduct of the petitioners, as stated, clearly disentitles them from questioning the selection process and after participating in the selection process, the petitioners have waived their right to question the methodology adopted by the Police Recruitment Board (PRB) for making selection. It is submitted that the process of selection for the post of Sub Inspectors has been completed fairly and in a transparent manner and that the process of selection does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and no fraud, as alleged by the petitioners, in any manner, has been committed by the Police Recruitment Board because the entire process of recruitment was technologically driven, with minimum human intervention. It is further submitted that the examination centers were covered by CCTV/Videography, besides sufficient supervisory staff, including Officers of the rank of SSPs, Dy.SPs and other officers, were deployed at all the examination centers, as controller of Examination, Centre Superintendents, Hall Supervisors and Invigilators, respectively, for smooth conduct of written test; besides, all the Board Members were also assigned the duties of Observers at all Centers on the date of examination. It is further submitted that proper computerized attendance for examination along with candidate’s photograph against each name, were maintained at all examination centers and the invigilating staff cross checked each candidate in order to make sure that no impersonation whatsoever takes place and that there is no proof placed on record by the petitioners to substantiate the allegations levelled in the writ petition. It is pleaded that the contention raised by the petitioners that the process of selection has not been undertaken in accordance with the mandate of SRO 202, is preposterous as a bare perusal of the advertisement notice makes it clear that reference to SRO 202 is only with regard to condition of employment. Even, otherwise, as stated, what is being contended by the petitioners, in law, is not permissible for them as they have participated in the process of selection without any objection and, besides appearing in the written test, they have submitted themselves to the viva voce/personally assessment test without any demur. It is contended that only after being declared as unsuccessful, the petitioners have alleged that the respondents have not followed the relevant rules and regulations while conducting the process of selection, including SRO 202. It is further submitted that in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 172 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960, all appointments to non-gazetted ranks, above that of the Constables, have to be made by the appointing authority on consideration of recommendations of a Selection Board, which Board(s) are required to recommend candidates for appointment to the appointing authority, i.e. the Director General of Police and that the Police Rules framed under the Police Act are in supersession of all the rules on the subject. It is further submitted that the recruitment of suitable candidates in the Police Department is a specialized assignment, being highly technical in nature, and, therefore, cannot be made by the SSRB. The selection/recruitment to police involves special procedures to be adopted including, physical endurance tests, so as to select the candidates, who are capable of becoming efficient police officials and the same can be only gauged/determined by the expert senior police officers, keeping in view the field requirements and responsibilities. The selection/recruitment to police involves special procedures to be adopted including, physical endurance tests, so as to select the candidates, who are capable of becoming efficient police officials and the same can be only gauged/determined by the expert senior police officers, keeping in view the field requirements and responsibilities. It is also submitted that it is canard on the part of petitioners to allege that in case a given number of candidates are selected from a particular center, the selection stands vitiated, when, as a matter of fact, the selection is required to be made on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates and, in law, there cannot be any impediment in selecting a large of candidates from a given center, in case the candidates have made the grade. It is also submitted that the discrepancies projected by the petitioners in the writ petition with regard to residence of certain candidates cannot enhance the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that, in law, it is permissible to opt for an address for correspondence which can be different than that of the permanent address and that the discrepancies, so pointed out, cannot be construed to have resulted in fraud, as such, the petitioners are devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. 08. Mr. Jan, the learned senior counsel, who also represents some of the selectees/ private respondents, submits that the petitioners having, without any demur, participated in the selection process initiated and undertaken by respondent No.3 for appointment against the advertised posts of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department and, on such participation, having failed to make the grade for appointment against the advertised posts are estopped in law from impugning the selection process and/or the culmination thereof viz., the select list as well as the recommendations made for appointment of the selectees, as such, the writ petitions, being hit by the doctrine of legal estoppel, are liable to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel submits that no material, by way of evidence, has been placed on record by the petitioners to substantiate their contention regarding the selection being result of fraud. The learned senior counsel submits that no material, by way of evidence, has been placed on record by the petitioners to substantiate their contention regarding the selection being result of fraud. It is submitted that it is trite in law that in order to sustain the ground of fraud, it is imperative that all the necessary facts constituting the fraud alleged are disclosed in most intelligible terms and the material placed on record sustaining the allegation of fraud alleged. It is further submitted that the Centre bearing No. 1771111 at Jammu claimed by the petitioners to be an Examination Centre is not factually correct as there does not exist any Center bearing Code No. 1171111 at Jammu and, in fact, the seven-digit number 1171111 is actually Roll number code allotted to the candidates of the Jammu District, thus, embraces within its fold not only one Center, but all Centers falling within the territorial jurisdiction of District Jammu. It is contended that the case urged in the writ petitions on the ground of non-adherence of the SRO-202 of 2015 is also totally fallacious as well as grossly misconceived in law for the reason of the fact that in terms of the concerned Advertisement notice, the applicability of SRO 202 of 2015 is only qua the conditions of employment stipulated therein and not the recruitment to the service which, in law, is required to be carried out in accordance with the norms, criteria and the procedure as prescribed by law under the Police Act and Rules made thereunder. It is contended that the Police service, being a combat service, is a special service and, thus, the recruitment thereto is required to be carried out by the experts in the field in accordance with the norms, criteria and procedure as prescribed by law under the Police Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is contended that the Police service, being a combat service, is a special service and, thus, the recruitment thereto is required to be carried out by the experts in the field in accordance with the norms, criteria and procedure as prescribed by law under the Police Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further submitted that given the imperatives of a combat service, it is not legally permissible, rather open in law, to entrust the recruitment thereto to a Selection body who have no expertise in the field and, therefore, it is for this very reason accentuated by the interest of the efficiency of the Police Force that the recruitment thereto is entrusted to experts in the field with a specific and inviolable mandate of carrying out recruitment in strict accord with the norms, criteria and procedure prescribed by law under the Police Act and the rules made thereunder. 09. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 10. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners, in all these petitions, is that the respondents have not followed the procedure in the process of conduct of selection to the posts in question, including SRO 202 dated 30th of June, 2015, in terms whereof the selection, in the instant case, was to be made by the Services Selection Board. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the selection process was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner. 11. At the outset, what requires to be stated is that all the petitioners participated in the examination process without any demur/ hesitation, however, on having been declared as unsuccessful, they have, now, turned around and contended that the procedure followed in the process of conduct of selection was defective. 12. The law on the subject is not res integra. In ‘Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan: (2016) 1 SCC 454 ’, the appellant Institute before the Supreme Court invited applications for posts of Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. Respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court took part in the selection process. He was not selected. 12. The law on the subject is not res integra. In ‘Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan: (2016) 1 SCC 454 ’, the appellant Institute before the Supreme Court invited applications for posts of Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. Respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court took part in the selection process. He was not selected. He challenged the order of the Executive Council dated 14.08.2004, approving the appointment of various persons to the posts in question on the ground, inter alia, that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that he having fulfilled all the requirements ought to have been selected against one of the three vacancies. It was also alleged by him that there had been infraction of the recruitment rules. The appellant Institute denied and disputed the allegation regarding infraction of the recruitment rules and further denied and disputed the allegations of irregularities in the selection process. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioner having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection cannot challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful. The Division Bench of the Court, however, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment said that the question whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in this behalf referred to its earlier decisions in ‘G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow: [ (1976) 3 SCC 585 ]’; ‘Madan Lal v State of J&K: [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 ]’; ‘Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar: [ (2010) 12 SCC 576 ]; and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi: [ (2013) 11 SCC 309 ]’ and quoted passages therefrom in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment with approval. 13. In ‘D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakam: (2017) 9 SCC 478 ’, the Management of the Samuel LMS High School, Parassala, invited applications for filling up the post of Music Teacher on direct recruitment basis. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 both applied for the said post. The appellant was appointed as Music Teacher on 12.07.1999 in Samuel LMS High School, Parassala. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 both applied for the said post. The appellant was appointed as Music Teacher on 12.07.1999 in Samuel LMS High School, Parassala. Though Respondent No.1 had applied for being considered for appointment as Music Teacher in the Samuel LMS High School, but after she was not selected in the process of direct recruitment, she raised a plea that since the Management of both the schools were same, she was entitled to be promoted as Music Teacher on the basis of her seniority in the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. In this regard, she first filed a petition before the District Educational Officer who accepted her petition and held that the case of Respondent No.1 was covered under Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules. The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Education. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No.6 was that the two Schools were separate units. It was contended that the Samuel LMS High School was run for all children, whereas the Light to the Blind School, Varkala, was meant only for differently abled children. It was pointed out that Respondent No.6 had never maintained a common seniority list for these two schools and this was never challenged by Respondent No.1 or any other member of the staff. The Director, Public Instruction, held that both schools had different identities and Rule 43 was not applicable. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a representation which was rejected by the State Government in which it was held that these two schools were separate units and Respondent No.6 had been treating the schools run by them for specially challenged children as separate entities. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a writ a petition in the High Court of Kerala. An objection was raised that since Respondent No.1 herein had taken part in the selection process, she could not, after being not selected, be permitted to turn around and claim that the process of direct recruitment could not have been resorted to by the Management of Samuel LMS High School. This objection was overruled by the High Court only on the ground that there can be no estoppel against a statute and the appellant could not be debarred from filing a writ petition. The two writ appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. This objection was overruled by the High Court only on the ground that there can be no estoppel against a statute and the appellant could not be debarred from filing a writ petition. The two writ appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court was 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 Supreme Court held that the law was 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. The Supreme Court cited its various decisions in the judgment and quoted passages therefrom in the following manner: “5. In Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., 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., 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, 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, 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 SamuelLMSHigh 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.” 14. Viewed in the context of the above settled position of law, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process, but failing to make the grade to be selected, cannot be allowed to turn around and raise a grievance against the procedure adopted by the respondents and the allied mechanisms connected therewith adopted and applied by the respondents, and the consequent issuance of the selection list. It being so, these writ petitions, therefore, are held to be not maintainable on this count. 15. It being so, these writ petitions, therefore, are held to be not maintainable on this count. 15. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the process of selection against the posts in question has not been undertaken in accordance with the mandate of SRO 202, same is neither countenanced by law nor the facts as the advertisement notice itself clearly makes reference of SRO 202 only as a condition of employment. Furthermore, in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 172 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, all the appointments to non-gazetted ranks above that of Constables have to be made by the appointing authority on consideration of recommendations of a Selection Board. Even otherwise, the petitioners having participated in the entire process of selection without any objection are estopped in law to turn around and contend that the respondents have not followed the procedure in the process of conduct of the selection process. 16. It, needs, must be said that the recruitment of suitable candidates in the Police Department being not only a specialized assignment, but also highly technical in nature, cannot be made by the Services Selection Board. The selection/ recruitment to police force involves special procedures to be adopted, including the Physical Endurance Tests, so as to select the candidates who are capable of becoming efficient Police officials and the same can be only gauged/ determined by the expert senior Police officers, keeping in view the field requirements and responsibilities. 17. Perusal of pleadings of the parties and the records reveal that there is absolutely no bungling as alleged by the petitioners in the selection process. Records further reveal that the selection authority has in complete adherence to the procedure made the selection, therefore, by no stretch of imagination standard can be said to have violated the rules or changed the selection criteria prescribed by the rules. 18. Viewed in context of the above settled position of fact and law I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners having been in know of applicable selection criteria, had participated in the same and on their failure have turned around and raised grievance against the procedure of selection and the criteria so adopted by the selection authority, therefore, all these writ petition are not maintainable on this count also. 19. 19. The contention of selection authority having allowed mass copying is imaginary with no support of any cogent evidence, therefore, not sustainable. 20. The other limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a large number of candidates have been selected from a particular centre, thereby vitiating the selection is also untenable in view of the fact that each and every selection is required to be made on the basis of merit obtained by the competing candidates and, in law, there cannot be any impediment in the selection of a large number of candidates from a given centre, in case the candidates have made the grade. Moreover, on perusal of the original selection record, as produced by the respondents, there is nothing forthcoming which would suggest that any irregularity has been committed by the respondents in the process of selection. The respondents have, at every stage of the selection process, in fact, taken all the necessary steps so as to ensure that the process of selection is taken to its logical conclusion in a fair and transparent manner. 21. In view of the foregoing, the writ petitions, being without any merit, are dismissed together with the connected CMs/IAs/CMPs. Interim direction, if any, passed by this Court and subsisting shall stand vacated. 22. The original records, as produced by the respondents, are returned to Mr Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, in the open Court. 23. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.