JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - As the factual and legal issues involved in both these petitions are similar, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petitions are as under:- Vide advertisement No. 18/2019, dated 02.11.2019, respondent-Commission invited applications from desirous and eligible candidates for the posts of Lecturer (School-New) in the department of Higher Education. A copy of said advertisement is appended as Annexure P-1 with CWP No. 1107 of 2020. It is not in dispute that subsequently, this advertisement was rescinded by the Commission and a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent-Commission, i.e. advertisement No. 22/2019, dated 10.12.2019, appended as Annexure P-4 with CWP No. 1111 of 2020. Hereinafter this Court shall exclusively be referring to advertisement No. 22/2019, for the purposes of facts etc. Vide advertisement No. 22/2019, online recruitment applications were invited from desirous and eligible candidates for filling up the post of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce in the department of Higher Education. The OTRS was to be available on the Commission's website upto 30.12.2019 till 11:59 p.m. A candidate was eligible to participate in the selection process if he or she had passed matriculation from any school/institution situated within Himachal Pradesh, provided that this condition was not to apply to bonafide Himachalis. In terms of the advertisement, the applications were invited for the post of Lecturers for four subjects, including the subject of commerce, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. In all 215 posts of Commerce Lecturer (School-New) Class-III (Non-Gazetted) on contract basis, were advertised through said advertisement. These posts were advertised in the pay scale of 10300 34800+4200 Grade Pay. The essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were as under:- "Essential Qualification(s): 1. Academic Qualifications: Master's Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University (with minimum of 50% marks in aggregate) or its equivalent. Candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration are eligible for Lecturer (School-New) Political Science. Lecturer (School-New) Commerce: Commerce with Accountancy Financial Accountancy and Income Tax as major subjects of study. Holder of Degree of MFC (Master of Finance Control) is also eligible for the post of Lecturer (School-New) in Commerce subject from a recognized University. II. Proficiency in teaching Hindi and English 2. Profession Qualification: Bachelor Education (B.Ed.) as professional qualification from recognized University. Lecturer (School-New) Commerce: Commerce with Accountancy Financial Accountancy and Income Tax as major subjects of study. Holder of Degree of MFC (Master of Finance Control) is also eligible for the post of Lecturer (School-New) in Commerce subject from a recognized University. II. Proficiency in teaching Hindi and English 2. Profession Qualification: Bachelor Education (B.Ed.) as professional qualification from recognized University. Institution with minimum 50% marks OR two year's Integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course from a recognized University. Desirable Qualification: Knowledge of customs, manner and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh." 3. The scheme of examination prescribed in the advertisement was as under:- "SCHEME OF EXAMINATION 1. There shall be a written objective type examination (MCQ) (Computer Based Test Offline Test). Marks obtained in written objective type examination (either online or offline) shall be counted for deciding the merit of the candidates. The candidates, who will qualify the written objective type examination (Computer Based Test Offline Test) will have to appear for evaluation. Final selection of candidates will be made on the basis of marks obtained in the objective type examination (Computer Based Test Offline Test) and evaluation based on the parameters devised by the Department of Personnel vide its notification No. Per. (APB)B(15)-5 2014 dated 17.04.2017 subject to passing of Written Objective Type Examination. 2. Candidates in the ratio of 10 times of total number of posts will be declared qualified in the written objective type examination (MCQ) (Computer Based Test Offline Test) consisting of 85 questions of Multiple Choinces of 85 marks in the ratio of 65:10:10 of 1 hours (90 minutes) duration. Syllabus for Written objective type Examination 65 questions of Multiple Choice of Masters Degree Level in the concerned Subject. 65 Marks 10 questions of Multiple choice consisting of G.K. of Himachal Pradesh. 10 Marks 10 questions of Multiple choice consisting of G.K. of National International affairs. 10 Marks Allocation of Marks (i) Written objective type Examination =85 Marks (ii)Evaluation :As per parameters defined by the Govt. of H.P. =15 Marks TOTAL MARKS =100 Marks 4. The examination in issue took place on 23rd of February, 2020, in which, the petitioners participated. 10 Marks 10 questions of Multiple choice consisting of G.K. of National International affairs. 10 Marks Allocation of Marks (i) Written objective type Examination =85 Marks (ii)Evaluation :As per parameters defined by the Govt. of H.P. =15 Marks TOTAL MARKS =100 Marks 4. The examination in issue took place on 23rd of February, 2020, in which, the petitioners participated. The grievance, which has been raised by the petitioners by way of present writ petitions, is that unlike previous years, when the Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) Test Booklet for selection to the post of Lecturer (School-New) was published both in English and Hindi, that is to say that the multiple choice questions provided in test booklet, were in both English as well as Hindi language, this year in an arbitrary manner, the respondent-Commission published the booklet for the test, for the post of Commerce Lecturer only in English language, which gravely prejudiced the petitioners and they have been put at a disadvantageous position because of the said act of the respondent-Commission. As per the petitioners, Hindi is the National language of the country and one of the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement was "proficiency in teaching Hindi and English". But in the absence of multiple choice questions being put in both Hindi and English languages, proficiency of teaching in Hindi has not been tested by the respondent-Commission, and therefore, the act of the commission of providing questions in English language only, in fact, defeats the very spirit of the advertisement also. It has further been urged and argued on behalf of the petitioners that vide this advertisement, applications were invited for the post of Lecturers in other subjects also. As there was some discrepancy in the MCQ question papers of Hindi and Political Science, the MCQ question paper held for Hindi subject was cancelled completely, whereas the MCQ question paper held for the subject of Political Science was also rescinded, and the Commission held subsequent test by providing MCQ question papers in both Hindi and English language. As there was some discrepancy in the MCQ question papers of Hindi and Political Science, the MCQ question paper held for Hindi subject was cancelled completely, whereas the MCQ question paper held for the subject of Political Science was also rescinded, and the Commission held subsequent test by providing MCQ question papers in both Hindi and English language. On these bases, the petitioners have urged that the act of the respondentCommission of conducting the MCQ test papers in English language only for the post of Lecturer Commerce, is arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational and the same be set aside by issuing a mandamus to the respondent-Commission to hold a fresh test in which the questions be included in the test/question booklet in both Hindi as well as English language. 5. The petitions have been opposed by the respondent-Public Service Commission on the ground that there was no holding out made to the petitioners, at any stage, either through the advertisement, subsequent to which they participated in the selection process, or otherwise that the selection test would be held by providing MCQ questions in both Hindi and English language. It is further its case that the selection process undertaken by the Commission was for the post of Lecturer Commerce, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that by testing the knowledge of the participating candidates, by way of multiple choice questions in English language, one has been prejudiced or discriminated against. 6. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent-Commission has also submitted on the strength of the reply filed to the writ petitions that earlier a candidate who participated in the process of selection for the post of Lecturer was also tested on the basis of a personal test, but now the personal test has been dispensed with for Class-III and Class-IV posts vide Notification dated 18.07.2017, so issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh (appended with CWP No. 1111/2020 as Annexure R2/1), and in these circumstances, the Commission had no option but to adjudge the knowledge of a candidate in the language of English, as Hindi is 'Lingua Franca' language in terms of the essential qualification No.-II for the said posts, and to set the multiple choice questions in English language as there was no descriptive type paper for written examination for the posts in question. He has further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioners have no locus to file the present petitions because they participated in the selection process without any protest and it is only after the key answers were displayed on the website of the Commission on 26.02.2020 that the petitioners probably apprehending that they will not succeed in the written test, initially filed representations, and thereafter, filed these petitions. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that more than two thousand candidates have participated in the process of selection, and those candidates, who are not before this Court, and will be affected by the outcome of the writ petitions, have not been arrayed as party respondents to the writ petitions, which means that the petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He has also relied on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, i.e. (i) Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 ; and (ii) D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 . 7. During the pendency of these petitions, certain candidates, who have participated in the process of selection for the post in question, moved an application for impleading them as respondents in CWP No. 1107 of 2020, i.e. CMP No. 6521 of 2021. This application was disposed of by the Court by permitting the applicants therein to intervene in the matter and to assist the Court on the strength of the reply filed by the respondent-Commission. Learned Counsel for the interveners adopted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-Commission and he has submitted that as the petitioners have failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to them by the act of the respondent-Commission by providing the multiple choice questions only in English language, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as also the documents appended with the pleadings. 9. Before proceeding further, this Court will refer to the advertisement in issue, in response to which the petitioners participated in the selection process, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. This is advertisement No. 22/2019. As mentioned hereinabove, 215 posts of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce were advertised vide the advertisement for appointment on contract basis. 9. Before proceeding further, this Court will refer to the advertisement in issue, in response to which the petitioners participated in the selection process, which is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. This is advertisement No. 22/2019. As mentioned hereinabove, 215 posts of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce were advertised vide the advertisement for appointment on contract basis. The academic qualifications mentioned in the advertisement for Lecturer (School-New) Commerce were Commerce with Accountancy Financial Accountancy and Income Tax as major subjects of study. Holder of Degree of MFC (Master of Finance Control) was also stated to be eligible for the post of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce in Commerce subject from a recognized University. Though, it stands mentioned in the essential qualifications that one of the essentialities required to be possessed by a candidate is "Proficiency in teaching Hindi and English" but it is not mentioned anywhere in the advertisement as to how this proficiency was to be adjudged by the Commission and there is no challenge to the advertisement by the petitioners on the ground that there is vagueness in determining the same. 10. Incidentally, there are also on record the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the Education Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post of Lecturer Commerce (Annexure P-7 with CWP No. 1107 of 2020) and the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement are verbatim as are stated in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, to which also there is also no challenge in the writ petitions. 11. The Scheme of Examination as is mentioned in the advertisement provides that there shall be a written objective type examination (MCQ) and marks obtained in the same shall be counted for deciding the merit of the candidate and those who will qualify the same, will appear for evaluation. Final selection of a candidate was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the written objective type examination and evaluation based on the parameters devised by the Department of Personnel, State of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification dated 17.04.2017. 12. Incidentally, in the scheme of examination, it was nowhere mentioned that the written objective type examination (MCQ) was to be conducted by providing the questions in English as well as in Hindi. 13. 12. Incidentally, in the scheme of examination, it was nowhere mentioned that the written objective type examination (MCQ) was to be conducted by providing the questions in English as well as in Hindi. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners participated in the written objective type examination on the date when it was conducted by the Public Service Commission without any protest. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the petitioners participated in the said selection process under protest. 14. The petitioners in CWP No. 1107 of 2020 first time objected to the holding of the written objective type examination in English language only vide representation Annexure P-5, which was sent to the respondent-Commission by way of registered post on 27th February, 2020. As far as the petitioners in CWP No. 1111 of 2020 are concerned, they submitted their representation on 28th February, 2020. This means that both these representations were submitted by the petitioners only after the key answers stood displayed by the Public Service Commission on its website on 26.02.2020. It is relevant to refer to the question paper also, which is the subject matter of the dispute in these writ petitions. The same is appended with CWP No. 1111 of 2020 as Annexure P-10. The questions contained in the same shall be randomly reflected in this judgment so that it can be deciphered as to what was the standard of questions to which the candidates participated in the selection process had to respond:- "(1) Family pension received by a widow of a member of the armed forces where the death of the members has occurred in the course of the operational duties is a. exempt upto Rs. 300000 b. totally exempted c. exempted upto 350000 d. totally chargeable to tax 7) Assertion (A) Mark-up pricing is a method of determining price. Reason :P=ATC+(mxATC) is the expression for that. a. A is correct but R is not correct. b. Both A and R are correct. c. Both A and R are not correct. d. R is correct, but A is not correct. 12) Transport allowance for commuting from place of residence to place of duty for an employee who is physically challenged such as blind/deaf/dumb or orthopaedically handicapped with disability of lower extremities exempted up to : a. Rs. 3,200 per month b. Rs. 3,000 per month c. Rs. d. R is correct, but A is not correct. 12) Transport allowance for commuting from place of residence to place of duty for an employee who is physically challenged such as blind/deaf/dumb or orthopaedically handicapped with disability of lower extremities exempted up to : a. Rs. 3,200 per month b. Rs. 3,000 per month c. Rs. 2,800 per month d. Rs. 2,400 per month 18) Which constitutional amendment is done to pass the GST bill a. 101 Amendment b. 110 Amendment c. 120 Amendment d. 115 Amendment 26) Taxable value of perquisite being sweat equity shares allotted by the employer is: a. the fair market value of such shares as on the date when such option is exercised by the employee as reduced by the amount paid b. rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agriculture purpose. c. Fair market value subject to standard deduction of 50,000 d. Not taxable in hands of employee. 32) the maximum amount deductible u/s 80TTA in respect of interest on savings bank account is a. Rs. 10000 b. Rs. 20000 c. Rs. 50000 d. Rs. 100000 41) For availing exemption under Section 54, which amount is eligible for availing exemption? a. The taxpayer (i.e. seller) needs to be an individual or HUF b. Asset needs to be classified as a long-term capital asset. c. The seller should purchase a residential house either 1 year before the date of sale/transfer or 2 years after the date of sale/transfer. d. All of the above. 46) Which lake is situated near the Chanshal peak (Rohru)? a. Tanu Jubbal b. Chandranahan c. Katasan d. Karali 52) For which game/sport did Pooja Thakur of Bilaspur get Parshuram Award? a. Athletics b. Chauntra c. Kabaddi d. Shooting 58) What was the original name of epic Mahabharata? a. Raj Katha b. Bharat Katha c. Jai (Jaya) Samhita d. Pandor Samhita 64) Which is the largest planet? a. Naptune b. Jupiter c. Saturn d. Mars 68) UNCTAD stands for a. united nations committee for tariff and developments. b. United Nations Conference on trade and deficit. c. United Nations Conference on trade and development. d. United Nations cause for trade and development. a. Naptune b. Jupiter c. Saturn d. Mars 68) UNCTAD stands for a. united nations committee for tariff and developments. b. United Nations Conference on trade and deficit. c. United Nations Conference on trade and development. d. United Nations cause for trade and development. 75) Under hire purchase system, depreciation is charged on a. Cash price b. Market price c. Sale value of asset d. None of the above 80) Current Assests of a Company are worth Rs. 45000. Current ratio is 2:5:1. What would be the amount of current liabilities? a. Rs. 18000 b. Rs. 10000 c. Rs. 9000 d. Rs. 36000" 15. In the considered view of this Court, the nature of the questions which were put to the candidates in the written examination were of the standard so as to test as to whether the candidate was good enough to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Commerce in school cadre or not. These being multiple choice questions, whether asked in Hindi or English language would not make a major difference especially when a candidate attempting those questions was mandatorily to possess a Master's Degree in the subject concerned. Though, it is not in dispute that a Lecturer has to be proficient in teaching the subject both in Hindi and English, but his proficiency, either in Hindi or English, in the considered view of the Court, cannot be adjudged on the strength of his merit in the multiple choice questions test. The Court again reiterates that though previously the test was held by publishing the questions in both languages, i.e. Hindi and English, yet, in the absence of there being any holding out in the advertisement itself that the question paper will be both in Hindi and English, no legal right accrued upon the petitioners so as to demand from the Public Service Commission that the question paper ought to be a bilingual question paper. 16. Incidentally, after the representations were filed by the petitioners, the documents on record suggest that the issue was taken up by the Public Service Commission with the respondent-State vide communication dated 4th March, 2020, in response to which, the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 5th March, 2020, appended as Annexure R2/3 with CWP No. 1111 of 2020, informed the Commission that the selection process in respect of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce may be continued. This has also not been challenged by the petitioners. 17. There is one more point which the Court wants to refer to at this stage. In the present case, the employer is the Department of Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules in force have been framed by the employer in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The suitability of a candidate has to be adjudged on the basis of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules so framed by the employer. If the employer is satisfied with the mode of examination, which has been conducted by the Public Service Commission to engage Lecturers School Cadre in commerce, then, it is not for this Court to substitute its views and direct the Public Service Commission to proceed in a different manner. Besides this, as more than two thousand candidates have appeared in the written examination, who are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the process, therefore, also the Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts of the present petitions, the process so undertaken by the Public Service Commission, should not be interfered with as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by not publishing the question paper to the candidates in both Hindi and English language. 18. In fact, if the petitioners were really aggrieved by the question paper being published by the Public Service Commission in English language only and not in Hindi language also, as was the previous years practice, then the petitioners should have objected to the same at the time when they participated in the examination. After having participated in the examination, they cannot be now permitted to challenge the selection process by saying that the same is bad. They are estopped from doing so. Their participating in the process without protest means that they are acquiescent to the same. In similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 , has been pleased to hold as under:- "12.The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate. 13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla[4], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that : (SCCp.107, para 18) "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... (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil[8] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission[9])." 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (5) wherein it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. 15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar[10], the same principle was reiterated in the following observations (SCC p. 584, para 16) "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. 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 v. State of J&K(12), Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.(3), Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (4), Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (5) and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines (13)." 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission[14], candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations.The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. 17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi[15], candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that : (SCC p. 318, para 18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes partin the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome." 18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur[16], it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey[17], this Court held that : (SCC p. 500, para 17) "17. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey[17], this Court held that : (SCC p. 500, para 17) "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared.There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted." This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v.K. Sivasubaramaniyan[18]." 19. Again, Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 , has held as under:- 4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is 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 law is 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. 5. In G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow(3), 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 :- (SCC p. 591, para 15) "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. 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 Madann Lal v. State of J & K(4), 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 :- (SCC p. 493, para 9) "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(5), this Court held as follows :- "16........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 Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi(7), 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 :- (SCC p. 320, para 24) "24. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi(7), 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 :- (SCC p. 320, para 24) "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. The same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan(10) 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 Samuel LMS High 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. 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." Accordingly, in view of the discussion held hereinabove, it is held that as the petitioners participated in the process undertaken by the respondent-Commission for appointment against the post of Lecturer (School-New) Commerce, without any protest, they are estopped thereafter to assail the same, and otherwise also, in view of the fact that no holding out was made at any stage by the respondentCommission, either in the advertisement or otherwise that the multiple choice questions for the test in issue shall be bilingual, these writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.