JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel assisted by vice-counsel Mr. Yogendra Yadav appearing for the appellant, Mr. Darshana Poddar Mishra, the learned Additional Advocate General-I appearing for the respondent-State and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. 2. This Letter Patent Appeal has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The instant letters patent appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 04.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has been pleased to reject the prayer of the writ-petitioner/appellant. 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings, made in the writ petition which are required to enumerate here-in-below for proper adjudication of the lis are, that : 5. Vide Notification No.93 of 2011, which was notified by Jharkhand Academic Council for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Nav Utkramit Madhyamik Vidyalaya in different subject categories application was invited. The writ petitioner-appellant being a candidate of Backward Class-II applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science Mathematics). The writ petitioner-appellant applied under General category for the same attaching her caste certificate. The writ petitioner-appellant realizing her mistake made an application on 28.03.2012 to the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, stating that the same should be corrected and the Admit Card shall be released in accordance with the new information. The petitioner has received the Admit Card for General category. It has been contended that the writ petitioner-appellant made other applications. On declaration of final result, the petitioner secured 160 marks in the General category and remarks was provided therein not recommended. The writ petitioner-appellant being a candidate of B.C.-II secured 160 marks in General category as opposed 153 marks secured by few selected candidates under B.C.-II category. One Mr. Sirajuddin Ansari belonging to the General category was named in the final selection list who had secured 160 marks whereas the petitioner was also having the same secured marks was not recommended by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The petitioner further made representation on 06.01.2015. One Mr. Sirajuddin Ansari belonging to the General category was named in the final selection list who had secured 160 marks whereas the petitioner was also having the same secured marks was not recommended by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The petitioner further made representation on 06.01.2015. The respondent Jharkhand Academic Council vide letter dated 04.12.2017 informed the writ petitioner-appellant that the change of the caste certificate could not be done after the publication of the final result and her representation was rejected. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed the writ petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 04.12.2019 whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the writ petitioner-appellant has approached the respondents to make adequate correction in the application by her letter dated 12.09.2012 in the category so that the result of the examination appearing her roll number would be released in category of B.C.-II but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner-appellant had followed all necessary means to help facilitate her correction by way of his application dated 28.03.2012 to the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council along with the reminders, but the Council has not taken any steps and in that view of the matter, the writ petition ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that one Sirajuddin Ansari has also got 160 marks whereas the writ petitioner-appellant has also got the same marks, but Sirajuddin Ansari has been selected and the writ petitioner-appellant has not been selected. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Jharkhand Academic Council submits that pursuant to the Advertisement no.93 of 2011, the writ petitioner-appellant applied for General category. By way of referring Annexures-2 and 4 of the Memo of Appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent Council submits that the petitioner applied for the general category and in that view of the matter, the Admit Card was issued to the petitioner for appearing as General category candidate in the examination. By way of referring Annexures-2 and 4 of the Memo of Appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent Council submits that the petitioner applied for the general category and in that view of the matter, the Admit Card was issued to the petitioner for appearing as General category candidate in the examination. The learned counsel for the respondent Council by way of referring to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which has been brought on the record by way of supplementary affidavit submits that in case of tie of the marks, the candidates are being selected considering their age and as Ansari was having elder in age to the writ petitioner-appellant, he was selected. Relevant Rule-22 of >kj[kaM ÁkjafHkd fo|ky; f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 2012 is quoted hereinbelow: ^^22- dqy es/kk vad leku jgus dh fLFkfr esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dh tUe frfFk ds vk/kkj ij es/kk lwph esa mudk ikjLifjd LFkku fu/kkZfjr gksxkA vFkkZr ftudh tUe frfFk igys gksxh mudk ikjLifjd LFkku mij jgsxkA tUe frfFk Hkh leku gksus ij muds ÁFke uke ds jkseu fyfi ds o.kkZ{kj Øe esa ikjLifjd LFkku fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xhA^^ 8. We have perused the Advertisement wherein the Code of General category is 31. In Annexure-2, which is in the handwriting of the writ petitioner-appellant, the form filled up by the writ petitioner-appellant in the category code as reflected as 31. Thus, it transpires that the petitioner has applied under the General category. The writ petitioner-appellant appeared in the examination as a candidate of general category. The contention of the writ petitioner-appellant to treat her candidature under B.C.-II category cannot be considered at this stage when the examination has already been taken place and the appointment has been made. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that on being unsuccessful in the examination, the writ petitioner-appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the process. The respondent Jharkhand Academic Council has already completed the process and the successful candidates have already been appointed. We are not accepting the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant with regard to the tally of marks in view of the rule which has been brought by the supplementary affidavit which suggests that in case of tally of marks elder person will be given advantage and in that view of the matter, Sirajuddin Ansari was given advantage. 9. We are not accepting the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant with regard to the tally of marks in view of the rule which has been brought by the supplementary affidavit which suggests that in case of tally of marks elder person will be given advantage and in that view of the matter, Sirajuddin Ansari was given advantage. 9. It is well-settled proposition of law that when a candidate who consciously takes part in the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment reported in “Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 . Paragraph no. 17 and 18 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “17. Those who were desirous of competing for the post of Physiotherapist, which is a Group ‘C’ post in the State of Uttarakhand must have, after reading the advertisement, become aware of the fact that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 3-8-2010, the Board has been designated as the recruiting agency and the selection will be made in accordance with the provisions of the General Rules. They appeared in the written test knowing that they will have to pass the examination enumerated in Para 11 of the advertisement. If they had cleared the test, the private respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection procedure or the methodology adopted by the Board. They made a grievance only after they found that their names do not figure in the list of successful candidates. In other words, they took a chance to be selected in the test conducted by the Board on the basis of the advertisement issued in November 2011. This conduct of the private respondents clearly disentitles them from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. To put it differently, by having appeared in the written test and taken a chance to be declared successful, the private respondents will be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement and the procedure of selection. 18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.” 10. 18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.” 10. We have given thoughtful consideration of the fact as discussed hereinabove and after coming across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and after considering the entire aspect of the matter and legal position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the finding that the writ petitioner-appellant appeared in the selection process/ examination and after being unsuccessful on challenging the process, dismissed the writ petition. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the said judgment cannot be said to be faulty. 12. In view thereof, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.