JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.12.2020, advertising for filling up of two posts of Driver in the Office of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had applied, taken part in the selection process and was ranked 1st in the Practical Test and qualified for the interview. However, he did not come out successful after the final results, and the appointment was made in favour of the respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court primarily on the ground that he was the best suited candidate as he had secured the 1st position in the Driving Test and that undue consideration was given to the performance in the interview, which had resulted in his being deprived of gainful employment. 2. Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the weightage of marks given to the interview is unreasonable as the same, as per the RTI reply received dated 14.04.2021, showed that it was in the ratio of 50:50. He further submits that the advertisement did not reveal the Rules under which the selection was to be done and has also assailed the manner in which the selection was conducted. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has place reliance in the cases of Renu and Ors vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Anr. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 224 : 2001 AIR SCW 4885. 3. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that no case has been made out for any interference, inasmuch as, the selection process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. He submits that 70 marks out of 100, was fixed as the cut-off marks in the Driving Test to qualify for the interview and though the petitioner secured 84 out of 100 in the Driving Test, he however scored only 60 out of 100 in the personal interview, whereas the respondent No. 3 scored 70/100 and 87/100 respectively, thus scoring more than the petitioner in total. He further submits that the selection was as per the criteria prescribed by the Departmental Selection Committee dated 05.02.2021, before the selection was set in motion. He further submits that the selection was as per the criteria prescribed by the Departmental Selection Committee dated 05.02.2021, before the selection was set in motion. As such, he submits there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It appears that the challenge as made out is only against the stage of the interview and not the Driving Test. It is to be noted that as per the averments, the Driving Test was held on 8th and 9th of February, 2021 and the interview was conducted on 25th of February, 2021. The mode of recruitment it is seen, was settled by the Departmental Selection Committee on 5th February, 2021 i.e. before the selection commenced. It is an undisputed fact that there are no Rules in place regulating the method of recruitment for Drivers, and as such, it was well within the powers of the recruiting authority to frame such guidelines. The instant case is also not a case of the rules of the game being changed after the game has started and as such no illegality or irregularity can be attributed to the selection process on this aspect. 5. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has no quarrel with the practical Driving Test aspect, but is aggrieved with the method of recruitment only with regard to the marks allotted to the interview. Even on this count no case has been made out by the petitioner. It is settled law that a candidate having taken part in a selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same on being un-successful, even in some cases where arbitrariness is writ large. 6. In the instant case, the selection process was duly conducted as per the mode of recruitment laid down by the Departmental Selection Committee, and the petitioner has not been able to show any fact or circumstance to warrant any interference by this Court or that his rights had been violated in any manner. The judgments placed by the petitioner's counsel being passed on a different set of facts altogether, are not applicable to the present case. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 8. Parties are to bear their own costs.