JUDGMENT : Kuldeep Mathur, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the writ petition of the respondent Mr. Kamaljeet Singh was allowed and the respondents (appellants herein) were directed to provide appointment to the respondent-petitioner on the post of ‘Banking Assistant’ in the Central Co-operative Bank of the State of Rajasthan, where candidates having lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner had been appointed. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow:- The appellants-respondents issued an advertisement bearing No. 8/2010-11, inviting applications for 328 vacant posts of ‘Banking Assistant’ available in various branches of Central Cooperative Banks (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCB’) in 27 districts. The advertisement contained a stipulation requiring candidates to submit option for three of the participating banks. The examinations for the said post were conducted by the Rajasthan Institute of Cooperative Education and Management (RICEM). The respondent-petitioner was declared successful in the written examination held on 27.02.2011 and thereupon, he appeared in the interviews conducted for appointment in CCBs of following districts i.e. Hanumangarh, Sriganaganagar and Bikaner as per options selected in the application form. On not finding place in the final select list, an application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 21.11.2011 was moved by the respondent-petitioner seeking disclosure of final cut-off list pertaining to general candidates of 27 districts. In response to the RTI application, vide letter dated 02.01.2012 marks obtained by the respondent-petitioner in the written examination and interview held for the opted CCBs:-Hanumangarh, Sriganaganagar and Bikaner were provided. Being dissatisfied with the information furnished, the respondent-petitioner served a legal notice dated 11.01.2012 upon appellants-respondents for supplying the desired information. The appellants-respondents, vide communication dated 25.01.2012 furnished the cut-off list pertaining to general candidates for all 27 districts. The respondent-petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of appointment on the post of ‘Banking Assistant’ filed a writ petition before learned Single Bench with the following prayer: “a) That, by an appropriate, order, directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the humble petitioner for the post of banking assistant through, out the state of Rajasthan, in case he was meritorious among the state level. And petitioner may kindly be given the appointment. And petitioner may kindly be given the appointment. b) That, by an appropriate order/directions the matter may be remanded back to the respondents with the direction to pass an appropriate order after hearing the humble petitioner c) Any other relief, which just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. d) Cost of the litigation may also be awarded to the humble petitioner, from the courts.” 3. Learned Single Bench, vide order dated 12.05.2014 was pleased to allow the writ petition with a direction to appoint respondent-petitioner in a CCB of any district where candidates having lesser percentage of marks in comparison to the respondent-petitioner have been provided appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-respondents contended that pursuant to Advertisement No. 8/2010-11, all the candidates were extended equal opportunity to submit option for three banks of their choice for appointment to the post of Banking Assistant. He apprised the Court that each cooperative bank is a separate body corporate according to Section 7 of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 therefore, interview boards of individual banks were constituted vide order dated 4.11.2010. Based on the performance in interview, the candidates were recommended for appointment. All candidates were interviewed for three districts as per the option exercised by them in the application forms. Petitioner-respondent was interviewed as per his option for three CCB being Hanumangarh, Sriganaganagar and Bikaner and no candidate having secured lesser percentage of marks than the respondent-petitioner was provided appointment. It was vehemently submitted that respondent-petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement No. 8/2010-11 with open eyes, acquiescing to the stipulations provided therein. Therefore, the respondent-petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the specific condition mentioned in the advertisement, providing for the method of selection on remaining unsuccessful. 5. Counsel further contended that in view of the fact that all appointments were already made long back and as none of the selected candidates was impleaded as party in the writ petition, the relief ought not to have been granted in favour of the respondent-petitioner. It was thus prayed that the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 12.05.2014 be quashed and set aside for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. It was thus prayed that the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 12.05.2014 be quashed and set aside for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-petitioner argued that the recruitment process was initiated at state level in which candidates submitted their options for three banks. However the advertisement indicated that if the candidate is not selected in the bank opted for then he/she may be allotted any other bank in accordance with his/her merit. 7. Counsel vehemently argued that candidates who had secured lesser marks than the respondent-petitioner were appointed in banks other than CCBs Hanumangarh, Sriganganagar and Bikaner which is prima facie illegal and arbitrary. He thus prayed that the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 12.05.2014 may be upheld. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that through the advertisement No. 8/2010-11 applications were invited for various posts including 328 posts of ‘Banking Assistant’ in 27 branches of CCB Banks. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement no. 8/2010-11, all candidates including petitioner-respondent had given options for three CCBs. The respondent-applicant being fully aware of all the terms and conditions participated in the selection process. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of is no longer res integra. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 , held that: “The law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process.” 11. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:- “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.” 12. In view of the propositions laid down in the above quoted judgments, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that by having taken part in process of selection with full knowledge about the methodology/procedure adopted by the recruiting agency, the respondent-petitioner had waived his right to question the selection. 13. It is noticed that at the time of filing of writ petition, the selection process after written examinations and interview was consummated along with appointments of selected candidates against all the advertised vacancies but no selected candidate was impleaded as party in the writ petition. 14. In the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1984) 4 SCC 251 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.” 15. In the case of Jiten Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. Chief General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and Ors. reported (2011) 11 SCC 520 , the challenge laid to the recruitment process was rejected due to non-joinder of selected candidates at the time of filing of the writ petition. It was held as under: “That the petitioner are estopped by acquiescence, waiver, conduct and by negligence to challenge the appointment of the opposite parties who are discharging their duties sincerely to the best satisfaction of the authority being selected and appointed to the post for about ten years.” 16. It was held as under: “That the petitioner are estopped by acquiescence, waiver, conduct and by negligence to challenge the appointment of the opposite parties who are discharging their duties sincerely to the best satisfaction of the authority being selected and appointed to the post for about ten years.” 16. In the present case pursuant to the selection process initiated vide Advertisement no. 8/2010-11, selected candidates have already been given appointment in order of merit as per the select list prepared for each CCB. The selected candidates are not impleaded as party respondents. Learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that if the relief of appointment is given to the respondent-petitioner, it would adversely affect the rights of selected candidates. Therefore, the discretionary relief in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction should not have been granted to the petitioner. 17. In the light of above reasons, the special appeal is allowed and the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by learned Single Bench is reversed and set aside. 18. No order as to costs.