ORDER : Office of Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure A-1) addressed to various offices of the Police Department, informed that the Government have accorded approval for filling up 1200 posts of Police Constables (1005 male, 195 female) through direct recruitment in the pay band of Rs. 59010-20200+Rs.190 Grade Pay. Besides this, 1500 posts of Constables (1200 male and 300 female) were also sought to be filled in through this recruitment process, which could not be filled in earlier due to non-availability of candidates. Annexure ‘C’ of said communication contains the schedule of recruitment process, Another document annexed with the Annexure A-1 by the petitioner reveals that under Clause 12. “personality test’, it has been observed that the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. Per(AP.B)(B)15)-5/2014 dated 17.4.2017 has discontinued/dispensed with the process of holding interviews in respect of direct recruitment for making recommendations for Class-III and IV posts/services under State Government with immediate effect. However, a note has been appended thereto stating that the conduct of personality test is subject to final decision of Himachal Pradesh Government and the candidates will be notified accordingly in due course. 2. Record reveals that the advertisement was issued on 1.7.2017 and last date for submission of applications was 21.7.2017 and in column No. 7, ‘suitability-cum-personality test (interviews), it has been mentioned that subject to final decision of Himachal Pradesh Government, the candidates will be notified accordingly, in due course. 3. The petitioner belongs to Una District and for Una District, 59 posts were allocated in the general category. It is undisputed that the petitioner qualified the ground test, participated in the written test and secured 62 marks in total, as is reflected in Annexure A-2 and as such, having qualified the initial process, was called for personality test vide call letter dated 5.4.2018 (Annexure A-3). Petitioner appeared in the personality test but could not make it to the final merit list, Annexure A-4. Though, the petitioner had secured 5th position, on the basis of ground and written tests, yet he was awarded 05 marks in the personality test with a view to accommodate some other person(s)., as such, he filed representation to the respondents Besides above, petitioner also claimed in the representation that it was brought to his notice that the personal interview has been dispensed with by the Government vide Notification dated 17.4.2017 (supra) (Annexure A-5). Since no heed, if any, was paid to the representation made by the petitioner and candidates selected in the final merit list were called for medical examination, petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the first instance by filing OA No. 2304 of 2018, which, after abolishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 4354 of 2020, praying therein for following main reliefs: “i. That the selections and appointment of any after filing of OA of the respondent no. 6 to 20, against the post of constable on the basis of personal interview is liable to be quashed. ii. That direction may be issued to the respondents re-draw the select on the basis of written as well as physical test not on the basis of personal interview. iii. That the respondents may be directed to select the candidates on the basis of physical test and written test while adhering the notification of the state government Annexure A -5. iv. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the applicant for the post of constable keeping in view the merit of the applicant in the test. v. That the respondent no. 1 to 5 may be directed to place on record the roster point maintained by them, after perusal if found more than reservation is 50% may be quashed and set aside.” 4. Precisely the grouse of the petitioner as emerges from the pleadings as well as submissions made by Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, appears to be that since with the issuance of Notification dated 17.4.2017, (Annexure A-5) Government of Himachal Pradesh had dispensed with the procedure of conducting interview, final selection against posts in question, ought to have been made by the respondents on the basis of over all merit prepared on the basis of ground and written tests, wherein the petitioner was at Sr. No.5. During arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of this court to the documents procured by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, which otherwise came to be placed on record as Annexure A-6 collectively alongwith rejoinder, to demonstrate that the entire selection process is a farce and selection committee had already decided to select certain persons. Learned senior counsel further argued that person at Sr. Learned senior counsel further argued that person at Sr. No. 49 of Annexure A-6 of rejoinder, namely Puneet Singh Dadwal though was absent but a bare perusal of award list prepared by the selection committee, at the time of selection clearly reveals that at the first instance, said person was awarded marks by all the members of the Committee, however after cutting, he was shown to be absent. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that it is not possible for all the members of the Committee to wrongly award marks to said person, while preparing the award list, as such, it is quite apparent from the perusal of Annexure A-6, that the selection process conducted pursuant to advertisement, was a total farce and same was conducted merely to attach legal sanctity to the selection process. Lastly, Ms. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that seats of general category were allotted to candidates of reserved category and as such, general category candidates were left with 12 posts out of total seats allocated to them, as such, entire selection process stands vitiated on account of aforesaid illegality committed by the respondents, while making selection to the post in question. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the action of the official respondents and, while making this court peruse the reply filed by the State, contended that the entire selection was conducted strictly in accordance with law as well as Rules occupying the field and as such no interference is called for. 6. Having heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that out of 778 posts of Constables (Male), 59 posts were allocated to Una District and petitioner being resident of Una, applied against the said posts. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner scored 62 marks in the ground test and written test but in the personality test, he was only awarded 5 marks, as a consequence of which, he could not find a place in the final merit list. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner scored 62 marks in the ground test and written test but in the personality test, he was only awarded 5 marks, as a consequence of which, he could not find a place in the final merit list. 7. True it is that vide communication dated 17.4.2017 (Annexure A-5, Government of Himachal Pradesh ordered that selection to all Class III and IV posts of State Government would be made on the basis of merit of written examination or prescribed educational qualification followed by evaluation based on parameters contained in the Notification and there will be no interview, but the reply filed by the official respondents reveals that after issuance of aforesaid Notification, Director-General of Police, vide communication dated 22.6.2017 (Annexure R-2), sought certain clarification from the Government. It would be apt to take note of aforesaid communication, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: “2. In this regard kind attention is invited to Govt. Notification No. PER(APB)B(15)-5/201 dated 17.4.2017 regarding discontinuing/ dispensing with the process of holding interviews in respect of direct recruitment for making recommendations for Class-III & Class-IV posts. 3. The post of Constable in Class-III in Police Department and its recruitment is governed under Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules 2011. Clause 12 of Notification No. Home (A)A(3)1/2005-Part dated 11.3.2011 provides for Personality test consisting of 15 marks. Further Clause 12.2 provides that candidates who poses NCC(C) Certificate & 2 additional marks for NCC (B) certificate. 4. In this regard it is submitted that the procedure for recruitment of Constables in the Police Department has been notified vide notification No. Home(A)A(3)1/2005 Part dated 11th Mar 2011 under Punjab Police Rules, 1934. It is further submitted that as per Section 144 (4) of the H.P. Police Act, 2007, the Punjab Police Rules are still applicable in the State of H.P. The Rules cannot be amended by way of executive instructions for which proper procedure has to be followed as various codal formalities are required to be completed which may take long time. Furthermore, the department had earlier moved a proposal for amendment in Punjab Police Rules and the Law Department had opined that further amendment in PPR 1934 is not advisable as such amendments made therein are per-se illegal and will not with stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 5. Furthermore, the department had earlier moved a proposal for amendment in Punjab Police Rules and the Law Department had opined that further amendment in PPR 1934 is not advisable as such amendments made therein are per-se illegal and will not with stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 5. In view of above facts and time constraints, this department intends to carry out the recruitment as per existing provisions of Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules 2011 unless the amendment is treated as ultra vires in view of the above opinion of law department. The proposed Recruitment Notice will carry a stipulation that “Interview will be subject to decision of the Government”. However, in future the department shall conduct recruitment test as per the provisions contained in Notification No. Per(AP.B)B(15)-5/2014 dated 17.4.2017 after getting the above Rules amended, for which a separate proposal is appended as Annexure-A. 6. In view of above it is requested that this department may be allowed to conduct the recruitment of 1200 vacancies as sanctioned vide letter under reference on priority basis as per proposal indicated in para 5 above. So that the recruitment process can be initiated in a time bound manner. Therefore, an early decision in the matter is solicited. 7. It is further requested that the proposed amendment tin the Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules 2011 as appended may kindly be considered and necessary amendment may kindly be carried out or clarification/decision issued at the earliest in larger public interest.” 8. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that the Police Department apprised the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh that the posts of Constables are Class III posts in the Police Department and its recruitment is governed under Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2011 and as per Clause 12.2 of the Notification dated 11.3.2011, personality test consisting of 15 marks is required to be conducted after ground test and written test. 9. In the aforesaid communication, Director-General of Police submitted that the procedure of recruitment to the posts of Constables in the Police Department has been notified in the Punjab Police Rules and, as per S.144 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, Punjab Police Rules are still applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 9. In the aforesaid communication, Director-General of Police submitted that the procedure of recruitment to the posts of Constables in the Police Department has been notified in the Punjab Police Rules and, as per S.144 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, Punjab Police Rules are still applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted that the Rules cannot be amended by way of executive instructions, as such, till the time, Punjab Police Rules are amended, Department may be allowed to conduct recruitment to 1200 posts as per existing provisions of Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules 2011 (Annexure R-2). 10. Vide communication dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure R-3), Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, advised the Director-General of Police to follow the earlier procedure and recruit Constables as per existing Rules and not as per Notification dated 11.3.2011 and thereafter, the Police Department conducted personality test of the persons, who had cleared ground and written test pursuant to selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement. Annexure ‘C’ of Annexure A-1 dated 5.7.2017, clearly reveals that the candidates applying against the post in question, were made aware with regard to suitability-cum-personality test (interviews) but it was subject to final decision of the Himachal Pradesh Government. 11. In the case at hand, respondent Department, after having conducted ground and written tests, put everything on hold till the time, clarification was received from the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure R-3, page 50), whereby Department was permitted to conduct the selection process as per existing Rules notified vide Notification dated 11.3.2011. 12. In the aforesaid backdrop, grouse raised by the petitioner with regard to illegality committed by the respondent State by conducting suitability-cum-personality test (interviews), deserves outright rejection being devoid of any merit. No doubt, in terms of Notification dated 17.4.2017, selection to Class III and IV posts could be made on the basis of merit of written examination but even in that communication liberty has been reserved to the Department to conduct personality test/interview against the specific post(s), if same is absolutely essential, with prior concurrence of the Personnel and the Finance Departments. It is not in dispute that the post of Constable in the Police Department is a Class-III post and its recruitment is governed under the Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2011. It is not in dispute that the post of Constable in the Police Department is a Class-III post and its recruitment is governed under the Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2011. Clause 12.2 of the Notification dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure R-3, Annexure A), provides for personality test consisting of 15 marks. As per S.144(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, Punjab Police Rules are applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Rules cannot be amended by way of executive instructions, rather, for that purpose, proper procedure is required to be followed. 13. Reply filed by the respondent-State reveals that the Police Department had earlier moved a proposal for amendment to Punjab Police Rules, but, at that time, Law Department opined that further amendment in Punjab Police Rules is not advisable as such, amendment made is per se illegal and will not withstand test of judicial scrutiny. In view aforesaid, respondent-Department had no option but to carry out recruitment process as per existing provisions of Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2011, which otherwise it could do in exceptional circumstances in terms of Clause 4 of Notification dated 17.4.2017 (Annexure A-5), with prior concurrence of the Personal and Finance Departments. Before conducting personality test, respondent Department approached the Administrative Department, who, having examined the matter in light of the Rules, permitted the respondent Department vide communication 28.3.2018 (Annexure R-3) to fill up posts of Constables as per existing Rules notified vide Notification dated 11.3.2011, which clearly provided for personality test, as has been taken note herein above. 14. Since the Committee responsible for conducting interview/personality test, comprised of three members, it cannot be said that all of them were biased against the petitioner and purposely awarded lesser marks to ensure his ouster from the selection process. This Court, with a view to ascertain the correctness of the specific allegations of tampering in the record, summoned the original record, perusal whereof reveals that, at the first instance, candidate appearing at Sr. No. 49 Puneet Singh Dadwal, was awarded marks by the members of Selection Committee, but subsequently, he was shown absent. This Court, with a view to ascertain the correctness of the specific allegations of tampering in the record, summoned the original record, perusal whereof reveals that, at the first instance, candidate appearing at Sr. No. 49 Puneet Singh Dadwal, was awarded marks by the members of Selection Committee, but subsequently, he was shown absent. Though, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that bare perusal of mark list prepared by selection committee reveals that the selection list stood prepared in advance, wherein candidates, lower in merit, were awarded higher marks to ensure ouster of the candidates, who had secured more marks in the ground and written tests, but, having carefully perused the original record, this court finds that a specific note has been appended below the award/marks list that the person figuring at Sr. No. 49, Puneet Singh Dadwal, is absent and has been wrongly given marks. 15. However, this court need not go into that aspect of the matter since said Puneet Singh Dadwal was not selected for the post in question. 16. Another grouse raised by the petitioner is that candidates of reserve category have been selected against the posts meant for general category candidates. Respondent-State, in its reply has specifically stated that the selection has been made as per merit. Since the petitioner failed to specifically point out which of the candidates of reserved categories were selected against posts meant for general category candidates, this court is unable to address that argument. However, the plea taken by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that a person is to be considered against the reserved category, under which he applies, is not in consonance with the latest law, wherein, a person of reserved category can be considered against general (un-reserved) category, if he is higher in merit. In view of above, this plea of the petitioner is also not tenable. 17. At this stage learned Additional Advocate General took an objection that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, cannot be allowed to lay challenge to the selection process, after having remained unsuccessful. 18. It is settled law that a process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. 18. It is settled law that a process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a case, is to be declined by applying the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the two recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. “10. In Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 12. The contention of the respondent no.1 that the short- listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short-listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the respondent- writ petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor. 13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post. 14. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post. 14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. 15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 , a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go 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 Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) 9. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) 9. ....It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.' " 16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 , similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "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. 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 v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, 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, r the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner." 17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (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. 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." 18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (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 the 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." 19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open." 19. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357 , a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357 , a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: "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 (2007) 8 SCC 100 , this Court held that : "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 also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724 )". 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (2009) 3 SCC 227 , where 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 Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 , 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. and K. (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Marripati Nagaraja v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 522 , Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v.State of Uttaranchal and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 515 ." 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 , 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, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , 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 part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome." 18. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18) "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." 18. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, 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 (2015) 11 SCC 493 , 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 r 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. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam's case (supra).". 20. Since it stands duly established on record that the petitioner before laying challenge to selection process had participated in selection process without any demur, now it is not open for him to lay challenge to selection process after having been declared unsuccessful that too on the bald and baseless allegations. 21. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand dispose of.