JUDGMENT : M.V. MURALIDARAN, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking to quash the entire recruitment process in connection with the recruitment of 116 Staff Nurses of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.9.2015, including the impugned notice dated 06.1.2016 and the subsequent notice dated 07.1.2016, and consequently, direct the official respondents to hold fresh recruitment for appointment of 116 Staff Nurses of RIMS within a stipulated time. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The petitioners are aspirant job seekers, who are all eligible for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse. The petitioners applied for the post of Staff Nurse, RIMS, Imphal, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.9.2015 notified by the first respondent. The written test was held on 12.12.2015 and result of the written test was declared on 13.12.2015. Since there were allegations of leakage of questions, an enquiry was held and after enquiry was over, viva voce was held from 15.12.2015 to 18.12.2015 and the result was declared on 06.1.2016 and 07.1.2016 respectively. The petitioners did not succeed in the said recruitment. When the final result was declared, the petitioners found that number of near and dear ones of the Interview Board Members/RIMS staff/officials were selected. 3. According to the petitioners, the time allotted in the viva voce for each candidate was only 5 minutes and that the ratio of the candidates was more than 1:3, which is not permissible. Further, the marks allotted for written test was 300 and that viva voce was also 300 marks. According to the petitioners, there had been no transparency in awarding marks in the viva voce and the viva voce marks could not be same as that of the written test. Hence, the entire recruitment process suffers from gross irregularity and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners also prayed for holding of fresh recruitment process as per law. 4. Denying the averments set out in the writ petition, the First respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition contending that in response to the Advertisement, 6151 applications were received and out of 6151 candidates, 4395 aspirants appeared in the written test conducted on 12.12.2015 and result was declared on 13.12.2015. The petitioners also prayed for holding of fresh recruitment process as per law. 4. Denying the averments set out in the writ petition, the First respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition contending that in response to the Advertisement, 6151 applications were received and out of 6151 candidates, 4395 aspirants appeared in the written test conducted on 12.12.2015 and result was declared on 13.12.2015. After scrutiny, as per the decision of the Examination Committee, 369 candidates were declared eligible for viva voce held from 15.12.2015 to 18.12.2015 and the strength of the eligible candidates considered was thrice the vacant posts. It is stated that the interview of the shortlisted candidates continued with the protection from the State Police. The result of 116 successful candidates, as recommended by the Selection Committee, was declared on 6.1.2016 and the Institute simply notified the list of all 116 candidates for information of all concerned and that it never mentioned about the offer of form for appointment. 5. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that keeping in mind the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held between 15.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 and in compliance with the interim order granted in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015, 22 recommended candidates were not given appointment till a clearance/liberty obtained from the High Court of Manipur in the aforesaid related writ petition. On 07.1.2016, the Institute issued another notice in continuation of the notice dated 06.1.2016 that all recommended candidates except 22 posts to collect the offer of form for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse, RIMS, Imphal. Hence, there is no question of second result of 94 successful candidates being declared by RIMS on 07.1.2016. 6. According to the first respondent, the allegation of selection of near and dear ones or relatives of employees working in RIMS has no relevance to the issue and there are no such Rules that relatives of employees of the Institute cannot be selected if such candidates perform well in the selection process. Thus, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Respondent Nos. 3 to 118 have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that merely because four days were spent in conducting interviews for the selection of Staff Nurse, the petitioners cannot jump to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper. Thus, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Respondent Nos. 3 to 118 have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that merely because four days were spent in conducting interviews for the selection of Staff Nurse, the petitioners cannot jump to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper. Declaring of 94 candidates for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse is due to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015 and hence, there is no illegality in declaring 94 posts of Staff Nurse by the authority. It is further stated that the ratio provided by the Selection Committee for selection of 116 posts of Staff Nurse is not an irregular process and the cut off 369 candidates for appearing in the selection of 116 posts is reasonable and there is no irregularity in the process. It is also stated that non-mentioning of the method of recruitment would not affect the selection of the best candidates by adopting their own method, which is fair and reasonable. Hence, these respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The petitioner filed re-joinder affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent stating that the ratio followed in this case is not in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, the RIMS made a false statement which is highly contemptuous and it needs to be penalized for making false statement. The time for interview for each A-Grade Nurse candidates has to be a reasonable one, so as to measure the true personality of a candidate. The eligibility criteria which was prescribed in the Advertisement dated 08.9.2015 is the only known criteria to the petitioners and there was no notification with regard to any sort of change/modification in the said criteria or examination procedures or allocation of marks or cut off marks in the said selection process. 9. Assailing the entire recruitment process in connection with the recruitment of 116 Staff Nurses of RIMS, Imphal, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire recruitment process suffers from gross irregularity and the time allotted for viva voce for each candidate was only 5 minutes and also the ratio of the candidates was more than 1:3, which is not permissible in the eye of law. The learned counsel would submit that the marks allotted for written test was 300 and that for viva voce was also 300 marks and as such there has been no transparency in awarding marks in the viva voce. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, held that if a viva voce case is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, it must extend to anything between 10 to 30 minutes. According to the learned counsel, the private respondents 3 to 118 are all illegal appointees as their initial entry point is not in conformity with law and that they have no right to continue in their respective posts. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners then argued that Shri Y. Rajendro Singh, Deputy Director (Admn.), RIMS, Imphal, should not have participated In the selection process at all, but he himself participated in the viva voce as one of the Board Members. The learned counsel would contend that there is no clarity and/or Rules specified in the so called Advertisement dated 08.9.2015 and that as unsuccessful candidates, the petitioners have right to challenge the proceedings of the selection process as the entire selection process vitiates. According to the learned counsel, the selection process was completed in gross violation of the settled law of this land and also various acts of “legalities, favoritism etc. were committed by the respondent authorities. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions: (i) Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 (ii) Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 104 (iii) Raj Kumar and Others vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 (iv) Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Association of India (ALPAI) and Others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 435 (v) K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 12. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 8.9.2015, 6151 applications were received and since the number of applicants was large, a written test was held on 12.12.2015 and the result of the same was declared on 13.12.2015. He would submit that the method of evaluation of answer scripts was discussed in detail in the Examination Committee meeting held on 6.11.2015 under Chairperson of the then Director, RIMS, Imphal and after a detailed discussion, it was decided to use OMR sheets. With the use of OMR sheets evaluation of answer scripts of 4395 candidates on 12.12.2015 and declaration of result on 13.12.2015 was possible as per the decision of the Examination Committee meeting held on 23.11.2015. 13. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submitted that 369 candidates were declared eligible for viva voce held from 15.12.2015 to 18.12.2015 and number of eligible candidates considered was three times the vacant posts, however, it was little more than three times as some of the candidates scored equal marks at the cut off level. This is again in line with the decision of the Examination Committee meeting held on 6.11.2015. 14. The learned Assistant Solicitor General then submitted that as far as allegation of reduction of time of viva voce from 40 to 32 hours is concerned, the same is not correct as agitation of unsuccessful candidates took place outside the campus of Jubilee Hall, RIMS, whereas the venue of the viva voce was in the Conference Room of Jubilee Hall, RIMS and that the viva voce of the shortlisted candidates continued with the protection of State Police. 15. The learned Assistant Solicitor General added that the result of 116 successful candidates, as recommended by the Selection Committee, was declared on 06.1.2016. Since there was an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015, 22 recommended candidates who had been recommended for appointment against the 116 advertised posts and who were at the bottom of their respective category merit list were not given appointment till a clearance was obtained from the Hon'ble High Court in the related writ petition. Accordingly, on 7.1.2016, the Institute issued another notice stating that all recommended candidates except the 22 posts to collect offer of form for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse. Accordingly, on 7.1.2016, the Institute issued another notice stating that all recommended candidates except the 22 posts to collect offer of form for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse. Therefore, there is no question of second result of 94 successful candidates being declared by RIMS on 07.1.2016. 16. The learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that the allegation of selection of near and dear ones or the relatives of employees working in RIMS has no relevance to the issue and there are no such Rules that relatives of employees of the Institute cannot be selected if such candidate perform well in the selection process. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also argued that having participated in the selection process, the petitioners cannot question the selection process and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. To fortify his submissions, the learned Assistant Solicitor General relied upon the following decisions: (i) Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 (ii) Joginder Singh and Others vs. Roshan Lal and Others, (2002) 9 SCC 765 (iii) Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 (iv) Madan Lal and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486 17. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the selection of 116 posts of the Staff Nurses is not an irregular process and that the selection of the Staff Nurses by the Selection Committee is on the basis of their performance in the written test as well as viva voce and, therefore, there is no question of cherry-picking and question of bias does not arise. He would submit that the allegation made by the petitioners is only to mislead the Court to obtain favourable orders and that there is no irregularity in the selection process and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the private respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 19. An advertisement was issued on 08.9.2015 by the Director of RIMS, Imphal, for selection and appointment of staff nurses with indication of requisite qualification, etc. The petitioners have applied for the said post and participated in the written test conducted on 12.12.2015 and result was declared on 13.12.2015. 19. An advertisement was issued on 08.9.2015 by the Director of RIMS, Imphal, for selection and appointment of staff nurses with indication of requisite qualification, etc. The petitioners have applied for the said post and participated in the written test conducted on 12.12.2015 and result was declared on 13.12.2015. The Selection Committee shortlisted 369 candidates for viva voce from 15.12.2015 to 18.12.2015. Number of eligible candidates considered was three times the vacant posts. The result of 116 successful candidates as recommended by the Selection Committee was declared on 06.1.2016. Since there was an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015, 22 recommended candidates (17 Unreserved, 3 CBC and 2 ST) who had been recommended for appointment against 116 advertised posts and who were at the bottom of their respective category merit lists were not given appointment till clearance from the High Court of Manipur in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015. Subsequently, the first respondent issued another notice dated 07.1.2016, wherein it has been stated that all recommended candidates except 22 posts, to collect offer of form for appointment to the post of staff nurse. The factum of issuing Advertisement, participation of the petitioners in the written test and declaration of result and also issuing appointment orders excluding 22 posts were not denied by the petitioners. 20. The grievance of the petitioners is that the time allotted for viva voce for each candidate was only 5 minutes and that the ratio of the candidates was more than 1:3, which is not permissible. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the near and dear ones of some of the Interview Board Members were also selected for appointment as staff nurse. 21. To substantiate the plea that the near and dear ones of some of the Interview Board Members were selected for appointment as Staff Nurse, admittedly, the petitioners have not produced any materials. It is the say of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the allegation of selection of near and dear ones or the relatives of the employees working in RIMS has no relevance to the issue. There is some force in the argument of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. When the petitioners made allegation that near and dear ones of some of the Interview Board Members were selected, it is their bounden duty to establish the same. There is some force in the argument of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. When the petitioners made allegation that near and dear ones of some of the Interview Board Members were selected, it is their bounden duty to establish the same. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the allegation of selection of near and dear ones of Interview Board Members and/or relatives of employees working in RIMS has not been proved by the petitioners. Moreover, as rightly argued by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, no Rule has been shown which mandates that relatives of employees working in RIMS cannot be selected even if such candidates perform well in the selection process. 22. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 417 , Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 104 and Raj Kumar and Others vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as far as the time frame of interview for 369 eligible candidates is concerned, it can be seen that the time each candidate got for interview comes to around 5.6 minutes. Two minutes is over in greeting the Interview Board Members, as the candidates cannot just come in and sit instantly without addressing the Interview Board Members. So the actual time each candidates gets is less than 5 minutes, which vitiates the selection process. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that within 5 minutes, the candidates would not be able to get 300 marks towards viva voce. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable, as it was admitted by the First respondent that there was reduction of time from 40 hours to 32 hours. Moreover, the reduction of time is purely based on the administrative decision and the petitioners have no locus to raise the plea that each candidates got less than minutes in the interview for awarding 300 marks. 24. In Ashok Kumar Yadav, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “20. We do not think we can agree with this conclusion reached by the Division Bench. 24. In Ashok Kumar Yadav, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “20. We do not think we can agree with this conclusion reached by the Division Bench. But whilst disagreeing with the conclusion, we must admit that the Haryana Public Service Commission was not right in calling for interview all the 1300 and odd candidates who secured 45% or more marks in the written examination. The respondents sought to justify the action of the Haryana Public Service Commission by relying on Regulation 3 of the Regulations contained in Appendix 1 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 which were applicable in the State of Haryana and contended that on a true interpretation of that Regulation, the Haryana Public Service Commission was bound to call for interview all the candidates who secured a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate at the written examination. We do not think this contention is well founded. A plain reading of Regulation 3 will show that it is wholly unjustified. We have already referred to Regulation 3 in an earlier part of the judgment and we need not reproduce it again. It is clear on a plain natural construction of Regulation 3 that what it prescribes is merely a minimum qualification for eligibility to appear at the viva voce test. Every candidate to be eligible for appearing at the viva voce test must obtain at least 45% marks in the aggregate in the written examination. But obtaining of minimum 45% marks does not by itself entitle a candidate to insist that he should be called for the viva voce test. There is no obligation on the Haryana Public Service Commission to call for the viva voce test all candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement. It is open to the Haryana Public Service Commission to say that out of the candidates who satisfy the eligibility criterion of minimum 45% marks in the written examination, only a limited number of candidates at the top of the list shall be called for interview. And this has necessarily to be done because otherwise the viva voce test would be reduced to a farce. It is indeed difficult to see how a viva voce test for properly and satisfactorily measuring the personality of a candidate can be carried out, if over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed for recruitment to a service. And this has necessarily to be done because otherwise the viva voce test would be reduced to a farce. It is indeed difficult to see how a viva voce test for properly and satisfactorily measuring the personality of a candidate can be carried out, if over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed for recruitment to a service. If a viva voce test is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, the interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. In fact, Herman Finer in his book on Theory and Practice of Modern Government points out that “the interview should last at least half an hour.” The Union Public Service Commission making selections for the Indian Administrative Service also interviews a candidate for almost half an hour. Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 5½ hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed. The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate. Moreover, such a course would widen the area of arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, can, to borrow an expression used by the Division Bench, 'gatecrash' into the range of selection, if he is awarded unduly high marks at the viva voce examination. It has therefore always been the practice of the Union Public Service Commission to call for interview, candidates representing not more than twice or thrice the number of available vacancies. It has therefore always been the practice of the Union Public Service Commission to call for interview, candidates representing not more than twice or thrice the number of available vacancies. Kothari Committee's Report on the “Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services Examination” also points out, after an in-depth examination of the question as to what should be the number of candidates to be called for interview: “The number of candidates to be called for interview, in order of the total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think, twice the number of vacancies to be filled....” Otherwise the written examination which is definitely more objective in its assessment than the viva voce test will lose all meaning and credibility and the viva voce test which is to some extent subjective and discretionary in its evaluation will become the decisive factor in the process of selection. We are therefore of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The Haryana Public Service Commission in the present case called for interview all candidates numbering over 1300 who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement by securing a minimum of 45% marks in the written examination and this was certainly not right, but we may point out that in doing so, the Haryana Public Service Commission could net be said to be actuated by any mala fide or oblique motive, because it was common ground between the parties that this was the practice which was being consistently followed by the Haryana Public Service Commission over the years and what was done in this case was nothing exceptional. The only question is whether this had any invalidating effect on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission. ........ 22. That takes us to the next ground of challenge which found acceptance with the Division Bench. The only question is whether this had any invalidating effect on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission. ........ 22. That takes us to the next ground of challenge which found acceptance with the Division Bench. This ground of challenge was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioners and it was sought to be supported by reference to the decision of this Court in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258 : AIR 1981 SC 487 : (1981) 2 SCR 79 . The contention of the petitioners under this ground of challenge was that in comparison to the marks allocated to the written examination, the proportion of the marks allocated to the viva voce test was excessively high and that introduced an irredeemable element of arbitrariness in the selection process so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is necessary in order to appreciate this contention and to adjudicate upon its validity to consider the relative weight attached by the relevant rules to the written examination and the viva voce test. We have already referred to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as applicable in the State of Haryana. Rule 9 of these rules prescribes that a competitive examination shall be held in accordance with the Regulations set out in Appendix 1 for the purpose of selection by competition of candidates to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services and under Regulations 1 and 5 every ex-service officer has to appear in a written examination in 5 compulsory subjects carrying in the aggregate 400 marks and a viva voce test carrying 200 marks and likewise, every candidate belonging to the general category has to appear in a written examination in 8 subjects carrying in the aggregate 700 marks and for him also there is a viva voce test carrying 200 marks. The argument of the petitioners was that in case of ex-service officers the marks allocated for the viva voce test were 200 as against 400 allocated for the written examination so that the marks allocated for the viva voce test came to 33.3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making selection. The argument of the petitioners was that in case of ex-service officers the marks allocated for the viva voce test were 200 as against 400 allocated for the written examination so that the marks allocated for the viva voce test came to 33.3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making selection. So also in the case of candidates belonging to the general category, the marks allocated for the viva voce test were 200 as against 700 allocated for the written examination with the result that the marks allocated for the viva voce test came to 22.2% of the total number of marks for the competitive examination. This percentage of 33.3% in the case of ex-service officers and 22.2% in the case of other candidates was, according to the Division Bench, unduly high and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary. The correctness of this view has been challenged before us on behalf of the respondents. 23. This Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. pointed out in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1982) 1 SCR 320 that the object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favoritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. But the question is how should the competitive examination be devised? The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. “In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence of the Court and the Court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more appropriately left” to the wisdom of the experts. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. “In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence of the Court and the Court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more appropriately left” to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the Court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may sometimes be necessary to allow a fairly high percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That is why rigid rules cannot be laid down in these matters by courts. The expert bodies are generally the best judges. The Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately decide to have a written examination followed by a viva voce test. 24. It is now admitted on all hands that while a written examination assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva voce test seeks to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva voce test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities can be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board. 25. Some of these qualities can be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board. 25. Glenn Stahl has pointed out in his book on Public Personnel Administration that the viva voce test does suffer from certain disadvantages such as the difficulty of developing a valid and reliable oral test, the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test and public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence and, as pointed out by this Court in Ajay Hasia Case (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258 : AIR 1981 SC 487 : (1981) 2 SCR 79 , also of other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations, but despite these acknowledged disadvantages, the viva voce test has been used increasingly in the public personnel testing and has become an important instrument whenever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. Glenn Stahl proceeds to add that “no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personnel characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation, many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed, the oral test today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner.” There can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very useful function in assessing personal characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is therefore regarded as an important tool along with the written examination. Now if both written examination and viva voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. “In the case of admission to a college for instance”, as observed by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar Case, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1982) 1 SCR 320 , “where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination” and the importance to be attached to the viva voce test in such a case would therefore necessarily be minimal. It was for this reason that in Ajay Hasia Case (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258 : AIR 1981 SC 487 : (1981) 2 SCR 79 , this Court took the view that the allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent to the viva voce test was “beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary.” But, as pointed out by Chinnappa Reddy, J. “in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied.” There may also be services “to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise” and in case of such services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given to the viva voce test. There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. The Court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar Case (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1982) 1 SCR 320 “exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.” 26. We may now, in the background of this discussion, proceed to consider whether the allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent in case of ex-service officers and 22.2 per cent in case of other candidates, for the viva voce test renders the selection process arbitrary. We may now, in the background of this discussion, proceed to consider whether the allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent in case of ex-service officers and 22.2 per cent in case of other candidates, for the viva voce test renders the selection process arbitrary. So far as ex-service officers are concerned, there can be no doubt that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in their case is unduly high and it does suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. It has been pointed out by the Division Bench in a fairly elaborate discussion that so far as the present selections in the category of ex-service officers are concerned, the spread of marks in the viva voce test was inordinately high compared to the spread of marks in the written examination. The minimum marks required to be obtained in the written examination for eligibility for the viva voce test are 180 and as against these minimum 180 marks, the highest marks obtained in the written examination in the category of ex-service officers were 270, the spread of marks in the written examination thus being only 90 marks which works out to a ratio of 22.2 per cent. But when we turn to the marks obtained in the viva voce test, we find that in case of ex-service officers the lowest marks obtained were 20 while the highest marks secured were 171 and the spread of marks in the viva voce test was thus as wide as 151 in a total of 200 marks, which worked out to an inordinately high percentage of 76. The spread of marks in the viva voce test being enormously large compared to the spread of marks in the written examination, the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process, because even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily knocked out of the race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the viva voce test. It is therefore obvious that the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced. But while considering what percentage of marks may legitimately be allocated for the viva voce test without incurring the reproach of arbitrariness, it must be remembered that ex-service officers would ordinarily be middle-aged persons of mature personality and it would be hard on them at that age to go through a long written examination involving 8 subjects and hence it would not be unfair to require them to go through a shorter written examination in only 5 subjects and submit to a viva voce test carrying a higher percentage of marks than what might be prescribed in case of younger candidates. The personalities of these ex-service officers being fully mature and developed, it would not be difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of their merits on the basis of searching and incisive viva voce test and therefore in their case, the viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3 per cent. ....... 29. Now if the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3 in case of ex-service officers and 22.2 in case of other candidates, for the viva voce test is excessive, as held by us, what should be the proper percentage of marks to be allocated for the viva voce test in both these cases. So far as candidates in the general category are concerned we think that it would be prudent and safe to follow the percentage adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selections to the Indian Administrative Service and other Allied Services. The percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selections to the Indian Administrative Services and other Allied Services is 12.2, and that has been found to be fair and just, as striking a proper balance between the written examination and the viva voce test. The percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selections to the Indian Administrative Services and other Allied Services is 12.2, and that has been found to be fair and just, as striking a proper balance between the written examination and the viva voce test. We would therefore direct that hereafter in case of selections to be made to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services, where the competitive examination consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection. We would suggest that this percentage should also be adopted by the Public Service Commissions in other States, because it is desirable that there should be uniformity in the selection process throughout the country and the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission should be taken as a guide for the State Public Service Commissions to adopt and follow. The percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in case of ex-service officers may, for reasons we have already discussed, be somewhat higher than the percentage for the candidates belonging to the general category. We would therefore direct that in case of ex-service officers, having regard to the fact that they would ordinarily be middle-aged persons with personalities fully developed, the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test may be 25. Whatever selections are made by the Haryana Public Service Commission in the future shall be on the basis that the marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent in case of candidates belonging to the general category and 25 per cent in case of ex-service officers.” 25. In Ramesh Kumar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “14. Similarly, in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841 : AIR 2008 SC 1470 this Court held that selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. Similarly, in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841 : AIR 2008 SC 1470 this Court held that selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. The competent authority, if the statutory rules do not restrain, is fully competent to prescribe the minimum qualifying marks for written examination as well as for interview. But such prescription must be done at the time of initiation of selection process. Change of criteria of selection in the midst of selection process is not permissible.” 26. In Raj Kumar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “13. Having prescribed maximum marks for each item, necessarily they are required to apply the rationale to each of the candidates in accordance with the academic qualification etc. acquired by the candidates. The 1955 Rules give preference in the matter of selection to the person possessing higher academic qualifications. But, unfortunately, the Government did not adopt and apply the said rule. Equally, nothing has been indicated as to the marks awarded on each item. They had cut off the marks actually secured in the written examination and rationalised them to come within 25% quota. Though prescription of the marks for those items is perfectly valid and legal, but cutting off the marks actually secured by the candidates in the common written examination is arbitrary and unwarranted. It is not the case that examinations were conducted on circle wise basis according to the paper set by each circle. On the other hand, the admitted facts are that examinations were conducted between 25-4-1992 and 28-4-1992 at four centres on different dates in respect of all the candidates. The examination papers were of common standard and all were required to write the same examination. Under those circumstances, the appropriate procedure should have been to apply the marks as secured by them in the written examination plus the marks awardable to the respective candidates either on the academic qualifications or on the sports qualification or experience qualification or extra-curricular qualification or the marks actually secured in the viva voce and to pool them as total marks secured by each candidate and the merit list should have been prepared in the light of the Rules. On the basis of the aggregate marks secured by candidates, select list should have been prepared and recommendations made to enable them to appear in accordance with the prescribed Rules; including the rule of reservation applicable to various categories mentioned in the Rules and allotment made to the respective circles as envisaged under the 1955 Rules and all other rules issued in that behalf. Unfortunately, this procedure has not been adopted. On the other hand, the admitted position is that after the candidates were given training for three months as prescribed under the 1955 Rules and written examinations were conducted, they were again called for from the respective employment exchange and interviews were conducted thereafter. ................. 16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603 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. 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.” 27. 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.” 27. In Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Association of India, supra, the Apex Court held: “11. In R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683 : AIR 1993 SC 352 this Court observed as under: “10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that 'a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage'.” ......... 12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel-the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. Babu Ram vs. Indra Pal Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 358 , P.R. Deshpande vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 and Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SC 422 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 195.” 28. In the decision in K. Manjusree, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview.” 29. This Court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by the Selection Committee unless it is proved or obvious that marking is plainly arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to produce any material to show that the assessment of marks at the viva voce is patently arbitrary. 30. In Dhananjay Malik, supra, cited by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational all qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational all qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603 this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. This Court further pointed out 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.” 31. By relying upon the decision in Joginder Singh, supra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that because there were large number of candidates who appeared between 15.12.2015 and 18.12.2015, that cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. The said submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General appears to be acceptable. Normally, experienced persons are appointed as Members of the Selection Committee and time that should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Merely because only four days were spent in conducting the viva voce for the selection of the Staff Nurses, one cannot jump to a conclusion that the process of selection was not proper. 32. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 , the learned Assistant Solicitor General vehemently argued that the petitioners who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question the selection process. 33. In Vinodh Kumar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “18. 33. In Vinodh Kumar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. Munindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 .” 34. In Yogesh Yadav, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “13. The instant case is not a case where no minimum marks are prescribed for viva voce and this is sought to be done after the written test. As noted above, the instructions to the examinees provided that written test will carry 80% marks and 20% marks were assigned for the interview. It was also provided that candidates who secured minimum 50% marks in the general category and minimum 40% marks in the reserved categories in the written test would qualify for the interview. The entire selection was undertaken in accordance with the aforesaid criterion which was laid down at the time of recruitment process. After conducting the interview, marks of the written test and viva voce were to be added. However, since a benchmark was not stipulated for giving the appointment. What is done in the instant case is that a decision is taken to give appointments only to those persons who have secured 70% marks or above marks in the unreserved category and 65% or above marks in the reserved category. In the absence of any rule on this aspect in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the “rules of the game.” The High Court has rightly held that it is not a situation where securing of minimum marks was introduced which was not stipulated in the advertisement, standard was fixed for the purpose of selection. Therefore, it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. On the contrary in the instant case a decision is taken to give appointment to only those who fulfilled the benchmark prescribed. The fixation of such a benchmark is permissible in law. This is an altogether different situation not covered by Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203. 14. The decision taken in the instant case amounts to shortlisting of candidates for the purpose of selection/appointment which is always permissible. The fixation of such a benchmark is permissible in law. This is an altogether different situation not covered by Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203. 14. The decision taken in the instant case amounts to shortlisting of candidates for the purpose of selection/appointment which is always permissible. For this course of action of CCI, justification is found by the High Court noticing the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488. In that case, Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Service Rules was the subject-matter of interpretation. This Rule stipulated consideration of candidates who secured 45% marks in aggregate. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court recommended the names of candidates who had secured 55% marks and the Government accepted the same. However, later on it changed its mind and the High Court issued mandamus directing appointment to be given to those who had secured 45% and above marks instead of 55% marks. In appeal, the judgment of the High Court was set aside holding as under: (SCC pp. 226-27, para-12) “12. ... It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarily in fixing 55% as the minimum for selection and this is contrary to the rule referred to above. The argument has no force. Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit. The one higher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one who is lower in rank. It could never be said that one who tops the list is equal in merit to the one who is at the bottom of the list. Except that they are all mentioned in one list, each one of them stands on a separate level of competence as compared with another. That is why Rule 10(ii), Part C speaks of 'selection for appointment'. Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointment to be made, there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointment to be made, there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for mere eligibility.” 15. Another weighty reason given by the High Court in the instant case, while approving the aforesaid action of CCI is that the intention of CCI was to get more meritorious candidates. There was no change of norm or procedure and no mandate was fixed that a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. In order to have meritorious persons for those posts, fixation of minimum 65% marks for selecting a person from the OBC category and minimum 70% for general category, was legitimate giving a demarcating choice to the employer. In the words of the High Court: “In the case at hand, as we perceive, the intention of the Commission was to get more meritorious candidates. There has been no change of norm or procedure. No mandate was fixed that a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. Obtaining of 65% marks was thought as a guideline for selecting the candidate from the OBC category. The objective is to have the best hands in the field of law. According to us, fixation of such marks is legitimate and gives a demarcating choice to the employer. It has to be borne in mind that the requirement of the job in a Competition Commission demands a well-structured selection process. Such a selection would advance the cause of efficiency. Thus scrutinised, we do not perceive any error in the fixation of marks at 65% by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. The said action of the Commission cannot be treated to be illegal, irrational or illegitimate.” 16. Such a selection would advance the cause of efficiency. Thus scrutinised, we do not perceive any error in the fixation of marks at 65% by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. The said action of the Commission cannot be treated to be illegal, irrational or illegitimate.” 16. It is stated at the cost of repetition that there is no change in the criteria of selection which remained of 80 marks for written test and 20 marks for interview without any subsequent introduction of minimum cutoff marks in the interview. It is the shortlisting which is done by fixing the benchmark, to recruit best candidates on rational and reasonable basis. That is clearly permissible under the law. M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar, (1994) 6 SCC 293 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1377 : (1994) 28 ATC 286.” 35. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari, supra, the Apex Court held: “32. In conclusion, this Court recorded that the issue of estoppel by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and it is on that score a further question arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status - the situation, however, presently does not warrant such a conclusion and we are thus not in a position to lend concurrence to the contention of Dr Dhavan pertaining to the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 a three-Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise. ....... 34. ....... 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.” 36. It is true that where the selection is to be made only on the basis of the interview, the Selection Committee can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the Courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interview/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate. 37. In the instant case, the selection is based on the written test and viva voce. Shortlisting for the viva voce for 116 post of Staff Nurses of 369 from 4395 appeared candidates by the authorities is to recruit the best candidates on rational and reasonable basis, which is also in tune with law and there is no strict formula to fix at twice or thrice the vacant post. Merely because there were large number of candidates who appeared for written test and their answer papers were examined in 21 hours, it cannot ipso facto be inferred that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. 38. As rightly argued by the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the private respondents, having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process. 39. It is settled position that the unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process, cannot turn back and assail the selection process. 40. Maintainability of the writ petition by the candidate challenging the recruitment process after having taken part in it, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576 . 40. Maintainability of the writ petition by the candidate challenging the recruitment process after having taken part in it, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576 . Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, in Manish Kumar Shahi, supra, the Apex Court held as under: “9. The question whether the marks prescribed for viva voce test/interview are excessive and selection made in accordance with the criteria like the one specified in Rule 14 read with Appendix C and Para (vi) of the advertisement issued by the Commission has been considered by this Court in several cases including those upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether the prescription of a particular percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates, by and large, the courts have not found any constitutional infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview for recruitment to judicial services, administrative services and the like. ...... 13. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below: Mehmood Alam Tariq Case (1988) 3 SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 757 : (1988) 7 ATC 741: “20. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 60 (33 per cent) out of the maximum marks of 180 set apart for the viva voce examination does not, by itself, incur any constitutional infirmity. The principles laid down in Ajay Hasia (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258, Lila Dhar (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588, Ashok Kumar Yadav (1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88, do not militate against or render impermissible such a prescription. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the stipulation that officers to be selected for higher services and who are, with the passage of time, expected to man increasingly responsible positions in the core services such as the Administrative Services and the Police Services should be men endowed with personality traits conducive to the levels of performance expected in such services. There are features that distinguish, for instance, Accounts Service from the Police Service-a distinction that draws upon and is accentuated by the personal qualities of the officer. Academic excellence is one thing. Ability to deal with the public with tact and imagination is another. Both are necessary for an officer. The dose that is demanded may vary according to the nature of the service. Administrative and Police Services constitute the cutting edge of the administrative machinery and the requirement of higher traits of personality is not an unreasonable expectation.” ...... 16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. 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 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603, Marripati Nagaraja vs. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005, Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627 and K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57.” 41. It is well settled that it is not the function of the Court to hear petitions over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on the limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc. 42. As stated supra, in the present case, the petitioners have failed to show patent material irregularity in the constitution of Selection Committee or proved the mala fides affecting the selection. It is not disputed that the first respondent had constituted the Selection Committee consisting of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it. 43. It is apposite to mention that if the petitioners name appeared in the selection list, they would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection process. The petitioners invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after they found that their names did not find place in the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee. This conduct of the petitioners clearly disentitles them from questioning the very selection process. 44. In Madan Lal, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. 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. 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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 45. The petitioners appeared at the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, which interviewed the petitioners as well as the private respondents. The petitioners appeared at the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, which interviewed the petitioners as well as the private respondents. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. As stated supra, only because they did not get selected, they filed the present writ petition. The petitioners having participated in the interview and having not been selected, cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and/or there is no transparency in the selection. 46. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, the petitioners 2 to 6 have no locus standi to challenge the selection list as they are not qualified in the written test for appearing for the viva voce test. The said contention of the learned counsel for the private respondents has not been refuted by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the result of the viva voce on merits cannot be successfully challenged by the petitioners who took a chance to get selected in the said viva voce and ultimately failed. 47. It is to be mentioned that the High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the viva voce, nor can the petitioners successfully urge before this Court that they were given less marks though their performance was better. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, it is for the Selection Committee consisting of experts to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such viva voce. Therefore, the assessment on merits done by the Selection Committee cannot be challenged on the ground that there was no transparency in the selection process and that the entire selection is arbitrary in nature. 48. It appears that after the enquiry report, the result of recruitment to the post of Staff Nurses was declared on 06.1.2016 and 116 candidates were successful. It also appears that declaring of 94 candidates for appointment to the posts of Staff Nurse is due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015 not to fill up 22 posts. It also appears that declaring of 94 candidates for appointment to the posts of Staff Nurse is due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 946 of 2015 not to fill up 22 posts. In compliance of the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the competent authority declared only 94 posts by keeping 22 posts vacant. Hence, there is no illegality in declaring 94 posts of Staff Nurses by the competent authority. 49. The selection of 116 Staff Nurses by the Selection Committee is on the basis of their performance shown in the written test as well as in the viva voce. Therefore, there is no question of pick and choose and the question of bias alleged by the petitioners does not arise. That apart, the ratio provided by the Selection Committee for selection of 116 posts of Staff Nurses is not an irregular process and shortlisting of 369 candidates for appearing in the selection of 116 posts is reasonable, which is also permissible under law. The bias attributed against the Deputy Director of RIMS viz. Shri Y. Rajendro Singh in the impugned selection process has not been proved by the petitioners. 50. When the Selection Committee recommends selection of persons, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in the absence of bias. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favoritism is required to prove the same. However, in the instant case, no such allegation of bias or favoritism was proved by the petitioners by producing materials. Thus, the selection process was not found to be vitiated. 51. It is pertinent to note that while selecting the candidates, the Selection Committee has followed the requisite criterion and therefore, the impugned selection is not vitiated by any arbitrariness. Further, as stated supra, the Selection Committee has selected the candidates based on their performance. 52. As pointed out earlier, as the petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur, they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they are of the view that the Advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules, they could have challenged the Advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. If they are of the view that the Advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules, they could have challenged the Advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. Having participated in the selection process, the petitioners cannot question the impugned selection process by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 53. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.