JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gimi Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the official respondents; and Mr. Khoda Tari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 3. 2. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Miss Honi Yana, has put to challenge the legality and validity of the minutes, dated 25.05.2018, adopted by the Selection Committee, headed by Respondent No. 2 viz. Chairman-cum-Superintending Engineer (Coord.), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby the private respondent No. 3 has been selected to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, under 5% sports quota as per the Guidelines, dated 04.05.1995, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, thereby overlooking the qualifications of the petitioner. 3. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, adumbrated, as under:- “The petitioner, herein, is a recognized Taekwondo player of the Arunachal Pradesh Tae-Kwon-Do Association, affiliated to Taekwondo Federation of India, Arunachal Olympic Association, Sports Authority of Arunachal, recognized by Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs, Govt. of India, and a permanent resident of Pachu village, in the District of Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, and has represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the Taekwondo Championship2016, in 62 kg weight category held at Rajasthan and Khelo India, a National level sports competition held at Chennai, Tamil Nadu as well as represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the 21st National Sub-Junior Boys & Girls Taekwondo Championship-2013, held at Bangalore and has passed Class XII. On 22.02.2017, the Superintending Engineer(Co-ordination) Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Advertisement No.RWC/Cord/Estt./Advt-582/2017-18, has invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of 40 posts of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, including 1(one) post reserved for Meritorious Sports person, and pursuant to the above, the petitioner had applied for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator against the 5(five) per cent reserved quota for the meritorious sports persons, by submitting her application containing all relevant documents. In response to the said advertisement, altogether 16(sixteen) sports persons had applied against 5% Meritorious Sports Persons (MSP) reserved quota and the respondent authorities accordingly constituted a 3-Member Scrutiny Board which short listed 8(eight) candidates for viva-voce test and prepared a report for recruitment of Meritorious Sports Person under the Rural Works Department in descending order in terms of their achievements in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 5 and the private respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 8. Thereafter, on the basis of calling letter, the petitioner had appeared before the interview board for recruitment to the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, under 5% reserved sports quota for sports person, on 25.05.2018, and on the same date i.e. 25.05.2018, the result of the interview held for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator for the meritorious sports persons, under 5% quota, was declared by the Superintending Engineer(Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and subsequently, the private respondent No. 3 was appointed vide order, dated 29.05.2018, by the respondent No. 2 without considering the merit list report, prepared by the Scrutiny Board, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Memorandum No. 14034/1/95-Esst (D) Dated-New Delhi, 4-5-1995. In response to her RTI application, the state respondents had furnished all the relevant documents/information to her, vide letter dated 19.06.2018, from which, the petitioner has found that the respondent authorities have appointed one Shri Pura Taliyang (private respondent No. 3, herein) against the football discipline, under 5% reserved quota for the sports person by an appointment order, dated 29.05.2018, to the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, though he stands much below to her in terms of merit. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner, on 23.05.2018, submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 with a prayer to rescind the appointment of said Shri Taliyang, placed at serial No. 2 of the said impugned order and appoint her instead. However, the respondent authorities did not pay heed to the request of the petitioner. Being left with no option, a legal notice dated 27.06.2018, was served to the Superintending Engineer(Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, requesting him to rescind the impugned appointment order dated 29.05.2018, particularly the appointment of Shri Taliyang and appoint her without any further delay since private respondent has been appointed in violation of the recruitment rule. Being left with no option, a legal notice dated 27.06.2018, was served to the Superintending Engineer(Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, requesting him to rescind the impugned appointment order dated 29.05.2018, particularly the appointment of Shri Taliyang and appoint her without any further delay since private respondent has been appointed in violation of the recruitment rule. The petitioner is placed at Serial No. 5 in the merit list of sports person, prepared by the Scrutiny Board, whereas private respondent No. 3, is placed at Serial No. 8 in merit list. In response to the Notice, the respondent authorities stated that the appointment of Shri Tailyang to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator was made against 5% reserved quota of sports persons as per the recommendation of the selection board. The petitioner further contends that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has adopted the recruitment policy for appointment of meritorious sports persons to the group B, C and D posts from the total vacancies under 5% reservation quota for sports persons, vide Office Memorandum No. OM-13/2000, dated 18th July, 2021 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and other Office Memorandums issued by the Government of India from time to time. The aforesaid Notification on recruitment of meritorious sports persons has been upheld by this Court in WP©261(AP)/2008, dated 05/11/2008 and WP©468(AP)/2011, dated 15/05/2012, with a direction to follow the same in its true letter and spirit by following the due process of law in recruitment of group B, C and D posts from the total vacancies under 5% reservation quota for sports person in various posts in all the Government departments and its instrumentalities. The petitioner further contends that the modalities for recruitment of meritorious sports persons have been set out in the Office Memorandum No. 14034/1/95-Esst (D), dated 04.05.1995, by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, as in the Order of preference, quoted hereunder:- (i) First preference to those candidates who have represented the country in an International competition with the clearance of Department of youth Affairs & Sport. (ii) Next preference to those candidates who represented a State/UT in the Senior or Junior level National Championship organized by the National Sports federation recognized by the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports or national time organized by Indian Olympic Association and have won medal or position upto 3rd place. Between the candidates participating in Senior and Junior national championship/Game the candidates having participated and won medal in senior national championship would be given preference. (iii) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a university in an Inter-University competition conducted by association of India University/Inter-University sports Board and have won medals or position upto 3rd place in final. (iv) Next preference may be given to those who have represented the state’s school in the national sports/game for schools conducted by all the Indian school Games federation and have won medals or position upto 3rd place in final. (v) Next preference may be given to those who have been awarded national award in physical efficiency under National Physical Efficiency Drive. (vi) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a state/Union Territory/University/State school Team at the level mentioned in categories (b) to (d) but could not a medal or position not a medal or position in the same order of preference. The petitioner further contends that the action of the respondent authorities, in appointing the private respondent No. 3, to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh by adopting pick and choose policy under the sports quota by denying the petitioner who is having the requisite qualifications and in terms of merit, is in violation of the appointment rights “Rights to participate in public employment”, and as such, the appointment of Respondent No. 3, is de-hors the Recruitment Rules and the same is, therefore, liable to be terminated in view of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. By filing the affidavit-in-opposition, the State Respondents No. 1 and 2, while denying the averments made in the writ petition, have contended that for availing meritorious sportsperson quota in the Government job, the candidate should have represented and participated in the international event, national championship, inter-universities event and the inter-school sports and games event with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and duly recognized by the said Department and in the instant case, though the petitioner has participated in Taekwondo Championship, however, the same is without proper recommendation of the State Government, under the categories of recommendation as defined in the preference of guidelines of Meritorious Sport Persons Quota, paragraph No. 1, of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.08.1980, issued by the Government of India. The State Respondents also contends in the said affidavit-in-opposition that out of the 16 candidates who have applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator against the meritorious sports quota, 8 candidates were short-listed for the viva voce test and the said list was not a merit list. The said viva-voce test was necessitated in as much as all the candidates, who have applied for the Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, under the meritorious sports quota, in question, were found to have participated in the national level events and therefore, no candidate was selected for appointment on the basis of personal preference. In such a scenario, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process consciously. 5. The State Respondents, in the said affidavit-in-opposition, also contends that out of the 16 candidates, who have applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator against the meritorious sports quota, 8 candidates were short-listed for the viva-voce test and the said list was not a merit list. The said viva-voce test was necessitated in as much as all the candidates, who have applied for the Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator under the quota, in question, were found to have participated in the national level events and therefore, no candidate was selected for appointment on the basis of personal preference. In such a scenario, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process consciously. In such a scenario, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process consciously. The State Respondents, therefore, contends that the appointment of private respondent No. 3 was made solely on the basis of their individual performance in the viva-voce test, and the said process was not challenged by any of the candidates who had appeared in the viva-voce test. 6. The State Respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, have further contended that as per the result-sheet, dated 25.05.2018, two candidates, namely, one Shri Tania Nalo and the private respondent No. 3, herein, have been selected for appointment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator whereas two other candidates, namely, Miss Kago Sonia and Miss Goda Najak, were kept in the panel of waiting list and as the petitioner’s name does not even find a place in the waiting list panel, therefore, the question of violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India does not arise in this case, and in consequence thereof, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondent No. 3 whose appointment was rightfully made by the State Respondents in view of his performance in the viva-voce. 7. The State Respondents further contends that the private respondent No. 3 had represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in National Level ‘Subroto Cup Football Tournament’, which is an inter-school football competition. That apart, the petitioner is a graduate and is well-versed in typing and other computer related works and his name for appointment to the said post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator has been made by the Selection Board only after his name was cleared by the Scrutiny Board on the basis of his participation in the Subroto Mukherjee Cup Football Tournament, and as such, no illegality has been committed by the Department concerned for selection of the candidate for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator under the meritorious sports quota by way of selection through the viva-voce test and the petitioner, having taken part in the viva-voce test without any complaint, now, cannot challenge the selection process as it is well-settled law that if a candidate take a chance and appears at the interview then only because the interview was not palatable to the candidate, he cannot just turn around and subsequently, contend that the entire interview process was unfair and illegal. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, the State Respondents prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. By filing the affidavit-in-opposition, the private respondent No. 3 also contends that out of 16(sixteen) candidates, who had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk(LDC) under meritorious sport Quota, 8(eight) candidates including the writ petitioner, were called for viva-voce test and they had accordingly participated in the viva-voce test. In the said viva-voce test, the private respondent has been selected for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator as he has done better than rest of candidates in the test and as such, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process. The private respondent No. 3 categorically contends that he has been appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator solely on the basis of his performance in the viva-voce test. That apart, the private respondent No. 3 has represented the State in the National Level ‘Subroto Mukherjee Cup Football Tournament’ which is one of the recognized national event within the inter-school level, whereas, the petitioner has participated in the 2nd Bhawan Mahaveer Open National Kyorugi Taekwondo & Poomsae Taekwondo Championship-2016, in 62 kg and National sub-Junior Boys & Girls Taekwondo Championship held in May 2013, which was though certified by the concern organization, was without proper recommendation of the State Government. Even the educational qualification of respondent No. 3 is a Graduate and he is expertise in typing and computer operation and 8(eight) short listed candidates out of 16(sixteen) were participated without any complaint. The petitioner having participated in viva voce test without any complaint, now cannot challenge the selection process. The private respondent No. 3 reiterates that his appointment is made on the basis of his performance in the viva-voce test and 2(two) other candidates namely Miss Kago Sonia and Miss Goda Najuk were kept in the panel of waiting list. The private respondent No. 3 further contends that the petitioner cannot claim even on the basis of 8(eight) short listed candidates, wherein the petitioner’s name is placed at Serial No. 5 and that, the name of the wait listed candidate of Miss Goda Najuk is listed at serial No. 3, and hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Further, having participated in viva-voce and not challenged the selection process before, now, they cannot turn around thereafter when they had failed at the interview. 9. The private respondent No. 3 further contends that in terms of policy for 5% reservation for Meritorious Sport Quota (MSQ), an appointment has to be made from amongst the meritorious sport persons who have participated in the International/National level, Inter-University event and Inter-School Sports and games event and hence, there is no illegality or bar for interview for selection amongst the sport person. Accordingly, the private respondent has been appointed as LDC cum computer Operator on the basis of his performance in the interview vide appointment order, dated 29.05.2018, issued under Memo. No. RWD/Cord/Esst/843/18/1066-70. 10. The private respondent No. 3 further contends that the writ petitioner had participated in the viva-voce test without raising any objection and also being aware of the fact that selection for the post will be done on the basis of the performance in the viva-voce test. The petitioner along with 7 others were found eligible by the scrutiny board for the interview and they were issued call letters for the viva-voce test and all the eligible candidates appeared in the viva-voce test, and till that stage, no dispute or any objection arose from any of the candidates. Thus, the petitioner took a chance to get herself selected at the said interview and when she did not find herself successful in the said interview, she had filed the instant writ petition, however, it is a well settled law that if a candidate take a chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently, contend that the process of interview was unfair or illegal. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, the private respondent No. 3 prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. Mr. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, the private respondent No. 3 prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 11. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is qualified in all respects for appointment to the said post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator and though she was placed at Serial No. 7 of the Merit List Report, however, she was not appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator for reasons best known to the authority concerned and in her place, the private respondent No. 3, who was placed at Serial No. 6 of the Merit List Report, was selected and given appointment thereof. Referring to the result sheet, Mr. Jini, learned counsel, submits that conducting the viva-voce test for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator is contrary to the guidelines in force and the appointment of respondent No. 3, is, therefore, bad in law and hence, the Court may interfere with the impugned appointment order of Respondent No. 3, by quashing and setting aside the impugned appointment order, dated 29.05.2018. 12. On the other hand, Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that the private respondent No. 3 had played in the National Level ‘Subroto Cup Football Tournament’, representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh; and he had appeared in the viva voce test along with 7(seven) others for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, who were found to have been qualified and on the basis of the performance of the candidates, who have appeared in the viva-voce test, the private respondent No. 3 was selected for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator and the result sheet was accordingly prepared. Having participated in the selection process, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel, contends that the writ petitioner now cannot turn around and challenge the selection process and that interview is the main fulcrum for judging the performance, over all personality and the actual working knowledge and the capacity to perform by the candidates. To buttress his contention, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Taniya Malik v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, reported in [(2018) 4 SCC 129]. 13. Whereas Mr. To buttress his contention, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Taniya Malik v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, reported in [(2018) 4 SCC 129]. 13. Whereas Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for private respondent No. 3, submits that the writ petitioner has taken part in Taekwondo and the said sport is nowhere mentioned in the list of games, and out of the 16 candidates who had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator in response to the said Advertisement, 8(eight) candidates were found eligible and the petitioner along with others, had appeared in the viva voce test, in question, and the result sheet was accordingly published on 25.08.2018. 14. Mr. Tari, learned counsel, further submits that the petitioner, having appeared in the viva-voce test, cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process, and she cannot approbate or reprobate, at the same time. To make good of his submission, Mr. Tari, learned counsel, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as rendered in the case of Madan Lal & ors. v. State of J.K. & ors., reported in [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 ]. 15. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, at length, I have also carefully gone through the petition and the documents made available on the record. 16. A cursory perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. specially paragraph No. 7, reveals that 8 candidates were shortlisted for the viva-voce test, out of the 16 candidates, who have applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, against the meritorious sports persons quota, and the petitioner has not challenged the said selection process. 17. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2, that the petitioner and other candidates had participated in the said viva-voce test without any objection and that the selection and appointment was made on the basis of performance in the viva- voce test. 18. 17. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2, that the petitioner and other candidates had participated in the said viva-voce test without any objection and that the selection and appointment was made on the basis of performance in the viva- voce test. 18. It is also categorically stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the viva-voce test was necessitated inasmuch as all the 8 short listed candidates, out of 16 candidates, who have applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, under the meritorious sports persons quota, were found to have participated in the national level events and they were found eligible for the meritorious sports persons quota and therefore, no candidate was selected for appointment on the basis of personal preference. Hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process consciously. 19. Further it appears that the petitioner has not filed her affidavit-in-reply, controverting the facts that have been set out in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents No.2 and 3. Thus, the averments so made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2 and 3, remained uncontroverted. It is apparent from the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 3 has participated in the national level events and both of them were found to be eligible against the meritorious sportspersons quota along with 6 other candidates. It also appears that the list of 8 candidates, so prepared is not a merit list. Further it appears that in order to select the best candidate, out of the 8 candidates found qualified for meritorious sports person’s quota, viva voce test was necessitated. The averment of the respondents’ No. 2 and 3, about the eligibility of the respondent No. 3, having not been disputed by the petitioner by filing affidavit in reply, the submission of Mr. J. Jini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No. 3 is not eligible to apply for the post, to the considered opinion of this court, got no legs to stand upon. Also it is apparent that the petitioner has not challenged conducting of viva-voce test by the State respondents. 20. A cursory perusal of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.08.1980, vide Memo. Also it is apparent that the petitioner has not challenged conducting of viva-voce test by the State respondents. 20. A cursory perusal of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.08.1980, vide Memo. No. 14015/1/76-Estt(d), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, reveals that it provides for the procedure to be adopted in selecting a meritorious sportsperson to Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ posts in relaxation to the procedure, which is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the petition. It is provided in the said Office Memorandum that:- (1). An application received by the appointing authority or a higher authority from a sportsmen belonging to any of the categories mentioned above, may be considered by the Ministries/Department or the Head of the Department, as the case may be, in light of the evidence which the applicant may furnish of his having represented in any of the competitions mentioned in the previous paragraphs, and subject also to the applicant fulfilling the requisite qualifications relating to education, age, etc., as may be laid down in the rules for the post/service for which he is a candidate. Normally, certificates awarded should alone be taken into account while considering the eligibility of an applicant in terms of above paragraphs. Appointments may be made of such a candidate after the Ministries/Department or Head of the Department as the case may be, is satisfied about the eligibility of the candidates under these orders as well as his suitability for the post in all respects. Where the appointing authority is subordinate to a Head of Department, such authority may make a recommendation in this regard to the Head of the Department, along with the necessary details, for obtaining his concurrence in the proposed appointment of the candidate. 21. It is to be mentioned that the aforementioned Office Memorandum has been adopted by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide Office Memorandum No. 13/2000 dated 14.05.2021. 21. It is to be mentioned that the aforementioned Office Memorandum has been adopted by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide Office Memorandum No. 13/2000 dated 14.05.2021. A cursory perusal of the Office Memorandum, dated 04.08.1980, issued by the Government of India, reveals that though not expressly provided in the Rule for conducting the viva-voce test to select the candidate, yet, there is no absolute bar which is apparent from a bare reading of the procedure that “….Normally, certificates awarded should alone be taken into account while considering the eligibility of an applicant in terms of above paragraphs….” It is a fact that herein this case the Rule does not provides for holding of viva-voce test. 22. But, the petitioner has consciously taken part in the viva-voce test without any protest. And having been taken part in the viva-voce test and having come out to be unsuccessful, now she has turned around and challenged the viva-voce test, as it has not been provided in the Rule. However, there is no expressed bar also, as contended by the state respondents in their affidavit-in-reply, which can be well inferred from the word ‘Normally’ so used in the Rules. But, the contention of respondent No.2 and 3 that-“having been taken part in the viva-voce test consciously without any protest and having come out to be unsuccessful, now she has turned around and challenge the process,” cannot be said to be bereft of merit, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & ors.(supra) and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 has rightly pointed-out this in his argument. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors.(supra), in paragraphs No. 9 and 10, as under:- “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 concerned respondents 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 concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. 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, that 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. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 23. Under the above facts and circumstances, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Tari, learned counsel for private respondent No. 3 and the ratio laid down in the case law as referred by him, fortified his submission. Also I find sufficient force in the submissions so advanced by Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and the ratio laid down in the case of Taniya Malik (supra); wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “It is absolutely necessary not only to have the interview but also but also to prescribe minimum passing marks for the same when the appointment in the higher judiciary to the post of District Judge is involved. Interview is the best method of judging the performance, overall personality and the actual working knowledge and capacity to perform otherwise the standard of judiciary is likely to be compromised”. 24. It is true that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in totally different from the facts and circumstances of the cited case. But, the principle of law, regarding the necessity of the interview, to the considered opinion of this court, is applicable to the case in hand also. Therefore, holding of viva-voce test, in order to select the best person from the 8 eligible participants, to the considered opinion of this court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 25. But, the principle of law, regarding the necessity of the interview, to the considered opinion of this court, is applicable to the case in hand also. Therefore, holding of viva-voce test, in order to select the best person from the 8 eligible participants, to the considered opinion of this court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 25. Since there is no express bar in conducting the viva-voce test in the Rule, and since, in this case, the final selection of the candidate, for the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator was made on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the said viva-voce test, and having participated in the said test without any protest, and having been unsuccessful in the said test, the petitioner, now, cannot be allowed to contend that holding of the viva-voce test is against the Rule, on the basis of which the private respondent No. 3, herein, has been selected for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. In holding so this court derived authority from the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors.(supra). 26. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.