JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Tayum Son, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Riyum Basar, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1; Mr. Gimi Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents No. 2 to 5; and Mr. Khoda Tari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 6. 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Miss Goda Nazak, has put to challenge the order, dated 29.05.2018, issued by the Superintending Engineer (Coord.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Rural Works Department, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. RWD/Coord./Estt./843/2018, by which the private respondent No. 6 has been appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. 3. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, adumbrated, as under:- The Respondent No. 4 viz. the Superintending Engineer-cum-Coordination, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Rural Works Department, Itanagar, vide Advertisement No. RWD/Cord./Estt/Advt-582/2017-18, dated 22.02.2017, has invited applications from the intending candidates for filling-up 1(one) post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator out of 20(twenty) post of the Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator against the 5% quota under the meritorious sports person, under the Rural Works Department. In response to the said Advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the said post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator by enclosing her achievement certificates alongwith the application. The petitioner was selected and placed at Serial No. 3 of the merit list as recommended by the selection Board for the said post, she being the achiever of national level competition with silver medal in the senior category. But, she was not appointed for the said post and instead, the respondent authorities kept her in Serial No. 2 of the wait list and had selected the private respondent No. 6 who was placed at Serial No. 8 of the merit list prepared by the Board although the Respondent No. 6 did not achieve any award at any point of time, either, in the State level competition, or, in the national level competition. In view of the guidelines of the Government of India so adopted by the State Government, the private respondent No. 6 cannot be treated as meritorious sportsperson. In view of the guidelines of the Government of India so adopted by the State Government, the private respondent No. 6 cannot be treated as meritorious sportsperson. Thereafter, in utter violation of the merit list prepared by the Selection Board, the Respondent No. 6 has been appointed as the Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application through RTI Act, pursuant to which, the authority concerned had furnished, amongst others, the application form of private Respondent No. 6, wherefrom, it could be gathered that, neither, the said Respondent No. 6 ever participated in any National Level competition, nor, he had been awarded with any medals to avail the benefits under the 5% quota reserved for meritorious sportsperson. By the above information, the petitioner could further gather that her name appeared at Serial No. 3 of the merit list whereas the name of the respondent No. 6 appeared at Serial No. 8 of the merit list. In response to another RTI filed by the petitioner, the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had furnished the copies of advertisement, in question; Recruitment Rules for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator; list of Selected Candidates and panel waiting list for the said post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, Selection Board Report Sheet and panel Board, dated 25-05-2018. That apart, as per the information furnished by the Public Information Officer(PIO), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the application form for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, no class-XII pass certificate has been appended by the respondent No. 6 at the time of filing of the application and as such, the petitioner’s right to employment as guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India stands violated and therefore, she has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, for setting aside and quashing the impugned order appointment, dated 29.05.2018, of private respondent No. 6. 4. 4. The State Respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the writ petition wherein it has been stated 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 5% quota for meritorious sportsperson is being implemented by the State Government and there is no bar as such that viva-voce should not be conducted for recruitment of meritorious sportsperson and in the present case, the viva voce test was conducted for those 8 eligible candidates, out of 16 candidates, who have applied for the post, and the petitioner also participated in the said test without any objection and the respondent No. 6 was selected on the basis of performance in viva-voce test and the petitioner was selected and placed at Serial No. 2 of the wait list on the basis of her performance in the viva-voce test. 5. The State Respondents therefore contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondent No. 6 whose appointment was rightfully made by the State Respondents in view of his performance in the viva voce. The State Respondents further contends that the writ petitioner did not even challenge the viva voce test in this writ proceeding. 6. 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 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 categorically denies that the private respondent No. 6 was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator by manipulating the recommendation made by the 3 Member Selection Board by pick and choose method and therefore, the State Respondents prays for dismissing the writ petition at the threshold. 7. By filing the affidavit-in-opposition, the private respondent No. 6 more or less has reiterated the identical contentions as averred by the State Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, referred to hereinabove. The private respondent No. 6 contends that he has been selected to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator as he had fared well than the rest of the candidates in the viva voce test and his appointment was made on the basis of his performance in the viva voce test and as such, the petitioner, cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after having taken part in the selection process. The private respondent No. 6 contends that he has represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in National Level ‘Subroto Cup Football Tournament’, which is an inter-school football competition. Furthermore, he is a graduate and is well-versed in typing and other computer related works and no illegality or bar 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 the interview and the petitioner, having taken part in the viva voce test without any complaint, she, cannot now 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 private respondent No. 6 prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. The petitioner, by filing her affidavits-in-reply to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondents; contends that the Notification, 04.08.1980, vide Memo. In the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, the private respondent No. 6 prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. The petitioner, by filing her affidavits-in-reply to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondents; contends that the Notification, 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, clearly indicates that the appointment of the meritorious sportsperson to Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ post is in relaxation of the procedure of the Recruitment Rules and the eligibility of such relaxation of Recruitment Rules are quoted as under:- A. Appointment under these orders can be made of a sportsmen considered meritorious with reference to the following criteria: i. Sportsmen who have represented a State or the country in the National or International competition in any of the games/sports mentioned in the list at Annexure-(A). ii. Sportsmen who have represented their University in the Inter-University Tournaments conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board in any of the Sports/game showing the list at Annexure-(A). iii. Sportsmen who have represented the State Schools Team in the National Sports/Games for Schools conducted by the All India School Games Federation in any of the games/sports showing in the list at Annexure-(A). iv. Sportsmen who have been awarded National Awards in Physical Efficiency under the National Physical Efficiency Drive. B. No such appointment can be made unless, the candidate is, in all respects, eligible for appointment to the post applied for, and in particular in regard to age, education or experience, qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post except to the extent to which relaxations thereof have been permitted in respect of Class/category of persons to which the applicant belongs. 9. 9. The petitioner further contends that in view of the above, in the recruitment process in question, the viva-voce test was not at all necessary in the case of meritorious sportsperson in the matter of final selection and the said viva-voce test is totally non-est in law and procedure and the paramount consideration for appointment of meritorious sportsperson has been enunciated in the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, quoted-above, and for such reason, conducting the viva-voce test by the respondent authorities for the meritorious sportsperson is a blatant violation of the guidelines in force and therefore, the appointment of private Respondent No. 6 in the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, which is tainted with gross illegality, may be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be accordingly appointed to the said post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator. 10. Mr. Son, 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. 3 of the merit list, 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. 6 who was placed at Serial No. 8 of the merit list, was selected and given appointment thereof. Referring to the result sheet, Mr. Son, 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. 6, is, therefore, bad in law and hence, the Court may interfere with the impugned appointment order of Respondent No. 6 by quashing and setting aside the impugned appointment order, dated 29.05.2018. 11. On the other hand, Mr. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that the private respondent No. 6 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 alongwith 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. 6 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. 12. 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. Tari, learned counsel for private respondent No. 6, 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 has relied upon the list of candidates, Annexure-IV, at Page No. 65 of the writ petition, but the said list was not a merit list and 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. 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. Per contra, Mr. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Annexure-4, appended to this writ petition, is the result sheet in terms of the Advertisement dated 27.02.2017, which was duly signed by a 3-Member Selection Board and that the cases referred to by the learned counsels for the respondents, are not applicable to the case, at hand. 16. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, at length, I have also carefully gone through the petition and the documents made available on record. 17. A cursory perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2 to 5, specially paragraph No. 7, reveals that 8 candidates were short-listed 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 person’s quota, and the said list, Annexure-IV, of the writ petition, was not a merit list. 18. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2 to 5 that the petitioner and others had participated in the said viva voce test without any objection and that the appointment was made on the basis of performance in the viva voce test. 19. 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 person’s quota, were found to have participated in the national level events and they were found eligible for the meritorious sports person’s 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. 20. It further appears that the petitioner has filed her affidavit-in-reply, but in the said affidavit, nowhere, she has denied the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2 to 5. Hence, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection process after taking part in the process consciously. 20. It further appears that the petitioner has filed her affidavit-in-reply, but in the said affidavit, nowhere, she has denied the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents No. 2 to 5. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 6 has participated in the national level events and both of them were found to be eligible against the meritorious sportsperson’s quota along with 6 other candidates, who were found eligible for meritorious sportsperson quota. And therefore, in order to select the best candidates out of the 8 candidates, viva voce test was necessitated. The averment of the respondents’ No. 2 to 5, about the eligibility of the respondent No. 6, having not been disputed by the petitioner, the submission of Mr. T. Son, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No. 6 is not eligible to apply for the post, to the considered opinion of this court, got no legs to stand upon. 21. The petitioner, in her affidavit-in-reply, has challenged conducting of viva-voce test by the State respondents, having been participated in the test and according to her, the viva-voce test was not at all necessary and the candidate for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator can be selected on the basis of performance certificate obtained by them in their respective field of sports/games. 22. I have carefully gone through 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, which 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). 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, alongwith the necessary details, for obtaining his concurrence in the proposed appointment of the candidate. 23. 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. Thus, 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. Mr. T. Son, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out this in his argument, and it is contended by the petitioner in her affidavit-in-reply also. 24. But, the petitioner has consciously taken part in the viva-voce test without any protest. Mr. T. Son, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out this in his argument, and it is contended by the petitioner in her affidavit-in-reply also. 24. 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, such a contention is not 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. 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. 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. 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.” 25. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I found sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Tari, learned counsel for private respondent No. 6 and the ratio laid down in the case law as referred by him, fortified his submission. I also find sufficient force in the submissions so advanced by Mr. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I found sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Tari, learned counsel for private respondent No. 6 and the ratio laid down in the case law as referred by him, fortified his submission. I also 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 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”. 26. It is a fact that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in totally different from the facts and circumstances of the cited case. Mr. T. Son, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out in his reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 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. And as such, the submission of Mr. T. Son, the learned counsel for the petitioner left this court unimpressed. Therefore, holding of viva-voce test to select the best person from the 8 eligible participants, to the considered opinion of this court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 27. 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. 6, 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). 28. 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.