JUDGMENT : By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 19.05.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 19.05.2020) i.e., Annexure P-18 and order dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the result of B-1 outdoor test declared vide Annexure P-13 qua the petitioners, having not been conducted as per the law contrary to Standing Order No. 11/2016, and the final list (Annexure P-10) be quashed and set aside. Further the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct the B-1 outdoor test afresh as per the standing order and in a fair and impartial manner. (iii) That in alternate to Relief No. (ii) official respondents may be directed to declare the petitioners eligible for Lower School Course, 2021 in parity to the petitioners in CWPOA No. 40671 of 2020, who have been recommended and set for the course notwithstanding the fact that they had also not passed the outdoor test.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:- Petitioners are serving as Constables in the Police Department of the respondent-State. The next promotional post from the post of Constable is that of Head Constable. In order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable, a Constable, who has put in five years service as such, has to participate in a selection process for selection of candidates for admission to promotion course for Constables at the Police Training College, as envisaged vide Notification dated 13.06.2008, issued by the Home Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh under The Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2008. In terms of Amendment Rules, Rule 13.7 of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh stands substituted to the effect that each Superintendent of Police/Commandant Police Battalions of Himachal Pradesh has to maintain a List ‘B’, which shall include the names of Constables, who are selected for admission to the Promotion Course for Constables at Police Training College. According to Rule 13.7, the test is to be regulated by a Standing Order issued by the Director General of Police. All successful candidates are to be kept in a panel and sent for Lower School Course on merit basis as per available vacancies. According to Rule 13.7, the test is to be regulated by a Standing Order issued by the Director General of Police. All successful candidates are to be kept in a panel and sent for Lower School Course on merit basis as per available vacancies. Names of the successful candidates are to be entered in List ‘B’ in order of their merit, as determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Director General of Police, on the basis of tests, as envisaged in this Notification. The Notification further envisages that there shall be two written papers for the test, i.e., Paper-I comprising of Punjab Police Rules and Practical Police Work and Paper-II comprising of Laws, including Local and Special Laws. The office of Director General of Police has issued Standing Order qua B-I test vide Annexure P-2, dated 02.01.2017, i.e., Standing Order No. 11/2016, which, inter alia, provides for regulation of B-I test, prescribes the composition of Departmental Committees for selection to be made from amongst Constables for admission to List-B etc. The composition of Departmental Selection and Promotion Committee is defined as one, which shall be constituted at District level. The Committee is to comprise of Superintendents of Police of the Districts other than the Superintendent of Police of that District where the test is to be held and other members of Committee are to be nominated by ADGP/AP&T. The ADGP/AP&T is also to prepare the final merit list and send the same to PHQ for deciding the merit of selected candidates. The Standing Order further envisages that the function of the Departmental Selection Committee will be to scrutinize the cases of all eligible Constables, who opted to appear in the test and facilitate/conduct the B-I written test in respect of the candidates of respective Districts and Battalions and other offices attached to the District for the purpose of test. It further provides that two GOs. nominated by the ADGP/AP&T will assist in conduct of the test if held in a District. The Standing Order envisages a written test and outdoor tests of the candidates, who qualify the written test. It further provides that two GOs. nominated by the ADGP/AP&T will assist in conduct of the test if held in a District. The Standing Order envisages a written test and outdoor tests of the candidates, who qualify the written test. In terms of the Standing Order, once the result for written test has been declared and notified, the qualified candidates shall be called for outdoor test by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted in terms of the Standing Order and outdoor test will be conducted as per the syllabus notified vide Himachal Pradesh Government Notification dated 13.06.2008, which provides as under:- “The syllabus shall be parade, squad drill, rifle exercises and traffic and sentry duties, dispersal of crowd. The candidates shall be tested not only in personal performance but also to see their power of command and control over a squad particularly their ability to point out mistakes committed by members of the squad and get those corrected.” 3. The maximum marks for outdoor events assigned in the Standing Order are as under:- “(c) The maximum marks for outdoor events are assigned as follows:- * Parade & Squad Drill 10 * Rifle exercises 06 * Traffic & Sentry Duties 06 * Dispersal of crowd 08 * Command & Control over squad 10 Total 40 The maximum qualifying marks percentage for the outdoor test are 60%,i.e., 24 marks out of 40 marks. Further, as per the Standing Order, those Police Constables, who qualify the outdoor test, shall be called for personal interview, which will carry 10 marks. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they successfully participated in the written test, which was held for selection of candidates to undergo the promotion course in issue, which were held from 08.08.2017 onwards. Their grievance is with regard to the rejection of their candidature in the course of outdoor tests by the Departmental Selection Committee. 5. In all, there are nine petitioners before this Court. Out of them, petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 participated in the selection process undertaken in District Solan, whereas, petitioners No. 4 to 6 participated in the selection process undertaken in District Sirmaur at Nahan. 6. This Court will first refer to the grievance of the candidates, who participated in the selection process undertaken in District Solan. Out of them, petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 participated in the selection process undertaken in District Solan, whereas, petitioners No. 4 to 6 participated in the selection process undertaken in District Sirmaur at Nahan. 6. This Court will first refer to the grievance of the candidates, who participated in the selection process undertaken in District Solan. The non-selection of petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9, who participated in the selection process for District Solan stands assailed by them, inter alia, on the grounds that the manner in which the outdoor test was conducted by the Committee is bad, as the Committee rather than assessing the suitability of the candidates, including the petitioners as a single Unit, bifurcated the number of candidates intra the three members and the number of candidates assigned to one Member were adjudged by that member alone for the purpose of assessing suitability and not by other two Members, which has led to grave prejudice to the petitioners, for the reason that there was no collective wisdom of the Committee while assessing the suitability of the petitioners, which is against the provisions and spirit of the Standing Order, which constitutes the Departmental Selection Committee. Besides this, the process has been assailed by the petitioners also on the ground that the result sheet prepared, contains cuttings and alterations, which casts doubt over the veracity of the process so undertaken by the Committee. Further, as per the petitioners, no videography of the outdoor test was undertaken by the Committee, as was done in many other Districts and the outdoor tests were held in late hours, without their being adequate lighting facilities etc. nor the syllabus was strictly followed. 7. The non-selection of petitioners No. 4 to 6, who participated in the selection process undertaken in District Sirmaur has been assailed on the ground that there were interpolations in the result sheets and further the outdoor tests were held in late hours without their being adequate light facilities, nor the syllabus of outdoor test was strictly followed. On these counts, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 8. Before proceeding further, this Court would, in brief, refer to the orders/documents, quashing of which stands prayed for by way of this writ petition. On these counts, the petitioners have prayed for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 8. Before proceeding further, this Court would, in brief, refer to the orders/documents, quashing of which stands prayed for by way of this writ petition. A. Annexure P-18, dated 19.05.2020, is order passed by the Director General of Police, vide which, the representation filed by the petitioners in terms of order, dated 14.12.2020, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 4170 of 2020, stands rejected. B. Order, dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure P-6), is also order passed by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, vide which also, representation filed by the petitioners in terms of order, dated 02.02.2018, passed by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 410 of 2018, stood dismissed. C. Annexure P-13 is the result of B-I outdoor test pertaining to District Solan and District Sirmaur conducted in the year, 2017. D. Annexure P-10 is the list of Constables, who have been declared to have qualified the B-I test in the year, 2017 and whose names have been approved for their nomination to undergo Lower School Course on the basis of State level merit list of qualified candidates 2017. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that Standing Order No. 11/16, dated 02.01.2017 provides for composition of the Departmental Selection and Promotion Committee, which has to be constituted for the purpose of facilitating/conducting the B-1 written test and in terms of the said Standing Order, the composition of the Departmental Selection & Promotion Committee shall comprise of the Superintendent of Police of the District other than the one where the test is to be conducted and two other Members to be nominated by ADGP/AP&T. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to the record, has contended that perusal of the record demonstrates that outdoor test of the candidates, who passed the written test, was not conducted by the Committee, but was conducted by individual Members of the Committee, by dividing the number of candidates into three separate groups, which was not in consonance with the spirit of the Standing Order. He has argued that the word ‘Committee’ means a Committee in totality comprising of all three Members and the Standing Order nowhere provided that the candidates to be assessed by the Committee could have been divided into groups and then, some candidates could have been adjudged by one Member to the exclusion of others and the results from all groups could then have been grouped together so as to find out the merit. On these basis, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as the outdoor test was not held by the Committee in terms of the spirit of the Standing Order, therefore, non-selection of the petitioners on the basis of this outdoor test is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it will be in the interest of justice in case the petitioners are declared to have passed the outdoor test, with all consequential benefits. Learned Senior Counsel has further, by referring to the record, argued that the result sheet prepared of the outdoor test demonstrates that there are interpolations therein, as there are cuttings against the names of many of the candidates against marks allotted to them, which shrouds the entire process with suspicion. These interpolations hint at favouratism and create doubt as to whether the allotment of marks was fairly done by the members, because as per the petitioners, cuttings give an impression that the same was not done in a fair manner. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that the syllabus mentioned for conducting the outdoor test was never followed in letter and spirit. The outdoor tests were held during late hours, without there being adequate light facilities etc., which has also resulted in unfairness and which also demands that the petitioners be declared as passed in the outdoor tests, with all consequential benefits. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments: “1. Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and others Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 441. 2. Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527 3. Dipak Babaria Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1792 4. Brajender Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and another (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 20. 5. Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and others (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 17.” 10. No other ground was urged. 11. Dipak Babaria Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1792 4. Brajender Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and another (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 20. 5. Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and others (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 17.” 10. No other ground was urged. 11. Defending the act of the State, learned Advocate General has argued that after participating in the B-1 outdoor test without any protest, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. He argued that if the petitioners were not satisfied with the method, which was undertaken by the Committee for conducting the outdoor test, then they should have protested the same there and then. He submitted that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners after unsuccessfully participating in the outdoor test to turn around and say that the same was bad in law. He further argued that cuttings etc. in the documents reflect the fairness of the Committee, otherwise nothing prevented the Committee to have had created flawless record in which there were no cuttings etc. He also argued that all the candidates who participated in the test were subjected to the same parameters and same testing conditions and the petitioners after being unsuccessful, are creating grounds for shrouding the process of outdoor test with suspicion, whereas the outdoor tests were conducted openly, fairly and in an unbiased manner. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments: “1. AIR Commodore Naveen Jain Vs. Union of India and others (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 34. 2. Anupal Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 173.” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, in detail. 13. Before dealing with the grounds raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the mode and manner in which the outdoor tests were conducted, this Court intends to make certain observations in this case. One of the prayers of the petitioners is to quash the result of B-I outdoor test declared vide Annexure P-13 qua the petitioners on the ground that the same has been conducted contrary to the Standing Order No. 11/16. One of the prayers of the petitioners is to quash the result of B-I outdoor test declared vide Annexure P-13 qua the petitioners on the ground that the same has been conducted contrary to the Standing Order No. 11/16. Further prayer has been made for quashing of final list issued in terms of Annexure P-10, vide which, the Constables, whose names are mentioned therein, were approved and nominated to undergo Lower School Course on the basis of State Level Merit List of qualified candidates for the year 2017. Now, a perusal of Annexure P-10 demonstrates that in terms of the same, more than 200 Constables were approved to undergo the Lower School Course. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of this communication. However, the candidates, who stood nominated by way of this Annexure to undergo Lower School Course, have not been impleaded as party respondents. In case the prayer of the petitioners is allowed by this Court and Annexure P-10 is quashed and set aside, then it is but obvious that the same will adversely affect the candidates who stood nominated vide this order (Annexure P-10). It is settled law that no order can be passed at the back of a person, which has civil consequences vis-a-vis him. Praying for quashing of Annexure P-10, without impleading the persons likely to be affected, in the event of the prayer being allowed, is bad in law and not permissible. This is for the reason that non-impleading of persons to be likely affected, as respondents renders this petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This Court is of the considered view that the Constables, who stood nominated vide Annexure P-10 and who were likely to be affected, in the event of the petition being allowed, were necessary parties and in the absence of them having been impleaded as such, this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 14. Now, while dealing with the factual issues, this Court will refer to the Standing Order, vide which the Departmental Selection Committee is constituted. This Standing Order, i.e., Order No. 11/16, dated 02.01.2017, is appended as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. 14. Now, while dealing with the factual issues, this Court will refer to the Standing Order, vide which the Departmental Selection Committee is constituted. This Standing Order, i.e., Order No. 11/16, dated 02.01.2017, is appended as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. As has been mentioned hereinabove also, the Standing Order provides that for selection of Constables for admission to promotion List-B, from which, Constables are to be sent to undergo promotion course, the Departmental Selection Committee shall be constituted at the District level. The Committee is to comprise of Superintendents of Police of the District other than the Superintendent of Police of the District where the test is to be held and other Members, who are to be nominated by ADGP/AP&T. In terms of this Standing Order, the functions of the Departmental Selection Committee are to scrutinize the cases of all the eligible Constables, who have opted to appear in the test and to facilitate/conduct the B-I written test in respect of the candidates of respective Districts and Battalions and once the result of written test has been declared and notified, the qualified candidates are to be called for outdoor test by the Departmental Selection Committee. 15. It is not in dispute that while adjudging the qualified candidates, who appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee, constituted for District Solan, the criteria which was followed by the Departmental Selection Committee was that the number of qualified candidates were divided into three groups and three members of the Committee then took the outdoor test of one group each and the final result was declared on the basis of the marks so allotted by the member concerned to the candidates, who appeared before him. In other words,the qualified candidates were not adjudged in the outdoor test by the Committee per se, but they were adjudged by a single member of the Committee. This Court is of the considered view that this criteria which was followed by the Departmental Selection Committee for District Solan is not just. 16. The purpose as to why a Committee is constituted to adjudge the suitability of candidates, is that there are more than one heads to assess the suitability of the candidates, which thus gives more pragmatism to the selection process and brings out the collective wisdom of the Committee. 16. The purpose as to why a Committee is constituted to adjudge the suitability of candidates, is that there are more than one heads to assess the suitability of the candidates, which thus gives more pragmatism to the selection process and brings out the collective wisdom of the Committee. As per the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “Committee” means: a person, or an assembly or Board of persons, to whom the consideration, determination, or management of any matter is committed or referred, as by a Court or legislature. An individual or body to whom others have delegated or committed a particular duty, or who have taken on themselves to perform it in the expectation of their act being confirmed by the body they profess to represent or act for. In legislatures a standing committee considers all bills, resolutions, and other items of legislative business falling within the category of matters over which it has been given jurisdiction. Membership and rank on standing committees are largely determined by the seniority rule. A special (or select) committee investigates and reports on specific matters and terminates when that function has been rendered. A joint committee of a legislative body comprising two chambers is a committee consisting of representatives of each of the two houses, meeting and acting together as one committee. 17. As per Pollock C.B., Reynell Vs. Lewis, (1846) 16 LJ Ex 25 at 30, quoted in AIR 1994 Bom. 96 at 100, the term “Committee” means an individual, or body to which others have committed or delegated a particular duty, or who have taken on themselves to perform it, in the expectation of their act being confirmed by the body they profess to represent or act for. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the reason as to why more than one Members Committee has been constituted for the purpose of testing the suitability of the candidates, is that it is the collective wisdom of the Committee, which prevails rather than whims of one or two Members while adjudging the suitability of the candidates. This element of collective wisdom goes a miss once the Committee segregates itself into Members and subjects only few candidates for scrutiny before a particular Member. In this way, the spirit of collective wisdom is not only defeated but is also lost and wisdom behind constitution of a Multi Members Committee is also negated. 19. This element of collective wisdom goes a miss once the Committee segregates itself into Members and subjects only few candidates for scrutiny before a particular Member. In this way, the spirit of collective wisdom is not only defeated but is also lost and wisdom behind constitution of a Multi Members Committee is also negated. 19. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that there can be a Single Member Committee also. However, in terms of the Standing Order in issue, for the purpose of selection of Constables, the Departmental Selection Committee envisaged in the Standing Order was not a Single Member Committee, but was a Committee comprising in terms of para-3 of the Standing Order, of the Superintendent of Police of the District other than where the test was being conducted and the other members of the Committee were to be nominated by the ADGP/AP&T. When the Standing Order itself provided that the composition of Departmental Selection Committee was a Multi Member Committee, then this Court is of the considered view that the merit of the candidates, who appeared and participated in the outdoor test ought to have been adjudged by the entire Committee collectively as a Unit and not by the individual member of the Committee. Had it been a case where all qualified candidates appeared before each Member, though separately, then also it would have been a different matter, because in that case, each Member of the Committee would have had an opportunity to adjudge the suitability of all the qualified candidates and give their individual opinion. Here is a case where one Member assessed the suitability of 1/3rd of the qualified candidates only and other 2/3rd qualified candidates did not at all appear before said Member. This is not what the spirit of Standing Order No. 11/16 is. This Court concurs with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the manner in which the suitability of the candidates was adjudged by the Departmental Selection Committee for District Solan is not in sync with the spirit of Standing Order No. 11/16. However, the next question is as to whether in the peculiar facts of this case, will it be in the interest of justice to quash the result of the said outdoor selection test or not? 20. However, the next question is as to whether in the peculiar facts of this case, will it be in the interest of justice to quash the result of the said outdoor selection test or not? 20. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 21. In Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and others Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the constitutional scheme excludes the scope of absolute power in anyone individual. 22. In Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the post from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rule and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the post were taken out from the purview thereof. thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the condidates. 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 & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 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 1955 Rules, So also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the 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 take by the Government are not correct in law.” 23. In Dipak Babaria Vs. 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 take by the Government are not correct in law.” 23. In Dipak Babaria Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1792, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, then the act must be done in that manner only. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and another (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 20. 24. In Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and others (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 17, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it, however, this principle can be differentiated on the ground that a candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that in a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. 25. In AIR Commodore Naveen Jain Vs. Union of India and others (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the appellant therein having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging such policy. Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that a person, who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot thereafter turn around and challenge the selection process, by relying upon its earlier pronouncements. 26. In Anupal Singh and others Vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that a person, who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot thereafter turn around and challenge the selection process, by relying upon its earlier pronouncements. 26. In Anupal Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 173, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it was not open to the aggrieved candidate to turn around and challenge the revised Notification and having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents intervenors. 27. Now, referring back to the facts of this cases, the petitioners after passing the written test, appeared before the individual Member of the Committee for the purpose of outdoor test. At that stage, they did not raise any protest with the mode and manner in which the suitability of the candidates was being adjudged by the Committee, per se. Not only this, after participating in the outdoor test, they waited for the declaration of the result. Had the petitioners been really aggrieved by the manner in which the Committee conducted itself in the course of adjudging the candidates for outdoor test, then the least that was expected, was that the petitioners would have either represented against the same before the higher authorities or ought to have had approached the appropriate Court of law before declaration of the final result against the same. This also was not done by them. It is only after the declaration of the final result when the petitioners did not find their names in the merit list of the selected candidates that they have assailed the mode and manner in which the outdoor test was conducted by the Selection Committee at Solan. This Court is of the considered view that in this background when the petitioners acquiescenced themselves to this irregular process adopted by the Committee, they cannot now be permitted to assail the same. This Court is of the considered view that in this background when the petitioners acquiescenced themselves to this irregular process adopted by the Committee, they cannot now be permitted to assail the same. Though this Court again reiterates that it is not satisfied with the manner in which the Committee undertook the outdoor test, yet in the larger interest, this Court is not interfering with the selection of the candidates, which stood made on the basis of the assessment made by the Committee for District Solan, especially when selected candidates are not before the Court. Now, as far as District Sirmaur is concerned, record does not demonstrates that therein also this kind of a procedure was followed by the Committee. It is further pertinent to mention that even qua District Solan, during the course of arguments, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that it were only the candidates, who were interviewed by one particular member, who got selected in the outdoor test. Thus, per se discrimination could not be demonstrated by the petitioners, though this Court reiterates that the procedure followed, was not very happy procedure. 28. Now, coming to the question of interpolations in the result sheet, it is evident from the record that there are number of cuttings in the result sheet of B-1 outdoor test. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate General could not give any reasonable explanation as to why such cuttings were present. However, a close scrutiny of the pleadings demonstrates that there is no bias which has been alleged by the petitioners in the pleadings vis-a-vis the candidates against whose names cuttings are there to the effect that the cuttings were made to give undue advantage to these candidates. Moreover, such candidates, in front of whose names cuttings are there in the remarks columns, are not before the Court and, thus, have not been given any opportunity to put forth their contention in this regard. 29. Moreover, such candidates, in front of whose names cuttings are there in the remarks columns, are not before the Court and, thus, have not been given any opportunity to put forth their contention in this regard. 29. Be that as it may, though this Court does not approves of any unnecessary cuttings in the result sheet, yet, this Court is of the view that as it could not be demonstrated during the course of arguments that these cuttings were a result of some bias in favour of certain candidates or were done with malafide intent, therefore, this Court is not interfering with the final selection on account of the allegation of cuttings being there in the result sheet. 30. In this view of the matter, as this Court finds no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed and as a result thereof, the orders which have been passed by the appropriate authority on the representations of the petitioners are also not being disturbed. However, before parting with the judgment, this Court observes and directs that for future, the Departmental Selection Committee which is so constituted in terms of the Standing Order No. 11/16, shall adjudge the suitability of the candidates for outdoor test as a Unit and shall not adopt the methodology which stood adopted by the Committee for District Solan. Similarly, the preparation of result sheet should not contain unnecessary and undue cuttings, as the same does not bears a good reflection on the conduct of the Selection Committee. With these remarks, this petition is ordered to be closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.