JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel for the Health Department, representing respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 10, 14 to 22, 25 to 35, 38, 39, 42 to 44, 46 to 52 and 54 to 57, as well as Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 11 to 13, 23, 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45 and 53. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, by projecting common cause of action, have prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, passed by the District Medical Officer, Kra Daadi District, with further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to conduct afresh the recruitment examination in consonance with the applicable recruitment rules. 3. In brief the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an employment advertisement dated 02.08.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District, the petitioners had applied for the post of Multi Tasking Staffs (MTS for short) and Multi Purpose Worker (MPW for short). As per the terms and conditions of the said advertisement, the written test was to be conducted on 21st and 22nd August, 2016 at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Palin, as follows; viz., (i) General English-100 marks, on 21.08.2016 from 1000 hrs. to 1300 hrs., (ii) General Knowledge-100 marks, on 21.08.2016 from 1400 hrs. to 1700 hrs., (iii) Elementary Mathematics-100 marks, on 22.08.2016 from 1000 hrs. to 1300 hrs., (iv) Viva voce-40 marks, on 27th to 29th August 2016. The said advertisement also indicated that under 3% disability quota, one post each of Peon and MPW was kept reserved for handicapped/ disability candidate. The petitioners project that having the requisite qualification, they had applied for the said posts, but they were unsuccessful in the selection process. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Director of Health Services, vide letter under Memo no. The petitioners project that having the requisite qualification, they had applied for the said posts, but they were unsuccessful in the selection process. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Director of Health Services, vide letter under Memo no. Mest-2016/87 dated 12.07.2016, had informed the District Medical Officer, Kra Daadi District (respondent no.3), that the recruitment should be made as per existing recruitment rule of MTS, which was communicated vide Order No. AP 175/2010/11 dated 27.01.2011 and AR-47/10 dated 02.06.2011, further stating therein that reservation quota, i.e. 25% for contingency staff having requisite qualification, 5% compassionate ground, 5% sports quota and 3% disability quota, etc., was required to be maintained. It was further submitted that after the written test the short-listed candidates were called for viva-voce test, which was conducted by a Selection Committee consisting of (i) the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, (ii) the District Medical Officer (DMO), (iii) DANO, and (iv) DPO (DVBDCP). In the said context, it was submitted that the constitution of the Selection Committee was contrary to the recruitment rules. It was submitted that in respect of Kra Daadi District, although there was a requirement for having 25% reservation for the Contingency staffs, those posts were illegally re-reserved without prior permission from the competent authorities. It was also submitted that certain candidates who did not possess the required educational qualification were allowed to participate in the recruitment examination. Moreover, it was also alleged that the selection procedure was unfair as many candidates who did not secure the minimum marks in the written examination were shortlisted and allowed to appear in the viva-voce test as those candidates had political and family connections with the members of the recruitment board. It was submitted that de-reservation of 25% reservation quota for contingency staffs was done to accommodate the selection and appointment of candidates having political and family connections with the recruitment board members. 5. It was submitted that various complaints were made to the authorities regarding the illegal manner in which the recruitment examination and viva-voce was held. In the said connection, one such representation dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure-P-8) was referred to. 5. It was submitted that various complaints were made to the authorities regarding the illegal manner in which the recruitment examination and viva-voce was held. In the said connection, one such representation dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure-P-8) was referred to. It was submitted that on receipt of such complaints, vide order bearing no.Mest-2016/125 dated 09.09.2016, issued on 14.09.2016, the Director of Health Services, Arunachal Pradesh had constituted a “Fact Finding Committee” consisting of DDHS (S&T) as Chairman, and DDHS as well as Rural Officer Road Safety as Members to examine into the alleged complaints in respect of recruitment process of MTS in Upper Siang and Kra Daadi Districts. It was submitted that the said Fact Finding Committee had visited the office of DMO, Kra Daadi on 26.09.2016, and had thereafter submitted its report dated 14.10.2016, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, indicated that the selection process was vitiated because of illegalities. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20.10.2016 was issued by which 54 candidates were selected for appointment in the post of MTS and MPW in Kra Daadi District. Accordingly, it is submitted that owing to gross illegality in the selection process, the result of the recruitment process was required to be set aside and that further direction be issued to the respondent authorities to undertake a fresh recruitment exercise. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the case of Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527 , and it was submitted that there was no estoppel against law. 6. The learned standing counsel for the Health Department per contra, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, has submitted that except for the petitioner nos.1 and 2, none of the remaining petitioner nos. 3 to 11 had qualified in the selection process and that the marks obtained by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 was lower than the last selected candidate. It was submitted that the selection committee was constituted in accordance with law. 1, 2 and 3, has submitted that except for the petitioner nos.1 and 2, none of the remaining petitioner nos. 3 to 11 had qualified in the selection process and that the marks obtained by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 was lower than the last selected candidate. It was submitted that the selection committee was constituted in accordance with law. In this regard, by referring to the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 2000 it was submitted that the post of District Medical Officer (DMO) was same in rank as a Deputy Director and it was clarified that when the officer of such rank is posted in the Headquarter, his designation is “Deputy Director”, but when is posted in the District, such officer would be designated as a “District Medical Officer” and therefore, the Deputy Director and the DMO are in the same rank and status. Accordingly, it was submitted that the selection committee was correctly constituted in terms of order no. MED/Esst/KD/66/15-16 dated 02.08.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District. By referring to the file noting at Annexure-9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, it was submitted that only after approval by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District in his capacity as Chairman, Selection Board Committee, a five member team headed by the DRCHO as Chairman was constituted as Scrutiny Board of MTS and MPW applications and that only after scrutiny of the application forms, the recruitment examination was held. 7. Justifying the alteration of the date and time schedule of the written examination and viva-voce test, it was submitted that a corrigendum was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District under Memo no. MED/Esst/KD/66/15-16 dated 17.08.2016. Accordingly, the date and time schedule of MTS and MPW was re-scheduled on 21.08.2016 from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., providing one hour each for General English, General Knowledge and Elementary Mathematics in the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Palin. In this regard, by referring to statements made in para-6 of the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition, it was submitted that taking into account a large number of applicants, the Selection Board Members, with due approval from the competent authority, had re-scheduled the examination, which was clearly mentioned in the admit card issued to the candidates and that there was no complaint from any quarter either before or immediately after the examination. It was submitted that the authorities had considered that Kra Daadi district was a newly created district with poor accommodation facilities, which would have caused a lot of hardship to the candidates appearing for the examination from far-flung areas of the district. Moreover, it was considered that the school rooms would have been occupied for two days to hold the examination, which would have hampered the academic pursuit of the students as the teachers would have been engaged for invigilator duties. 8. By referring to the Fact Finding report (Annexure-P-10 to the writ petition), it was submitted that in respect of 11 candidates on cross-verification of their qualification through internet, their certificates were found to be irregular and therefore, the service of 9 candidates out of 11 was not found acceptable and therefore, services of 9 such persons were terminated/ removed by an order dated 02.02.2017. However, it has been submitted that such order of termination has been assailed by filing WP(C) 47(AP)/2017, the impugned order has been stayed by this Court. It was submitted that the said writ petition is based on the projection that although the Fact Finding Committee has made certain observations with regard to 11 candidates out of which service of 9 candidates have been terminated, but the educational certificates submitted by the candidates were never declared as fake. Moreover, one of the grounds of challenge was also that an opportunity of hearing was not provided to the aggrieved persons. 9. It was also submitted that having participated in the selection process, it was not open to the petitioners to challenge the recruitment process after they became unsuccessful. It was also submitted that as per the recruitment rules, 25% of posts was to be reserved for serving contingency staff and accordingly, at the initial stage, 11 posts of MTS and 2 posts of MPW were kept reserved for serving contingency staff. However, the District Selection Board, after scrutinizing the bio-data and considering the length of service put in by the serving contingency staff as well as their educational qualifications, none of the serving contingency staff were found eligible for applying and selection as MTS and MPW and therefore, the reserved posts were de-reserved in Kra Daadi District. However, the District Selection Board, after scrutinizing the bio-data and considering the length of service put in by the serving contingency staff as well as their educational qualifications, none of the serving contingency staff were found eligible for applying and selection as MTS and MPW and therefore, the reserved posts were de-reserved in Kra Daadi District. It was also submitted that none of the serving contingency staff have challenged the selection process and therefore, as none of the petitioners are serving contingency staff, they cannot have a valid grievance in this regard. In support of his submission, the learned Departmental counsel has placed reliance on Sadananda Haloi and others Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others, (2008) 4 SCC 619 . 10. On behalf of the private respondents, the learned senior counsel and learned counsel have both submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioners had placed reliance on a complaint dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure-P-8), which was submitted by one Kipa Rakesh, but the said person is not one of the writ petitioners and therefore, the said representation dated 05.08.2016 was by a stranger to this proceeding, which cannot be relied upon. It was also submitted that the report of the Fact Finding Committee cannot be relied upon because no opportunity of hearing was given to any of the candidates and that the enquiry was conducted behind their back. It was also submitted that from the said report, it would be apparent that the Fact Finding Committee had resorted to verification of certificate from internet and that no attempt was made to verify the authenticity of the educational certificates from the concerned Board/ Examination Authority or from the respective schools and thus, it was submitted that the verification process was flawed and illegal. It was submitted that neither the petitioners nor the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 had produced the print-out of the internet data, based on which the educational certificates of 11 persons were discarded by the Fact Finding Committee and therefore, the Court ought not to rely on a mere statement, which was not backed by any document. Thus, it was submitted that the concerned candidates, who has lost their service on the basis of allegedly vague report of the Fact Finding Committee, have challenge their termination from service by filing WP(C) 47(AP)/2017, which is pending for disposal before this Court. Thus, it was submitted that the concerned candidates, who has lost their service on the basis of allegedly vague report of the Fact Finding Committee, have challenge their termination from service by filing WP(C) 47(AP)/2017, which is pending for disposal before this Court. It is further submitted that as the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process and were unsuccessful, under the principles of estoppel, the challenge to the selection process, after being unsuccessful, was not sustainable. In support of their submission, reliance was placed on the case of D. Saroja Kumari v. R. Helen (Thilakom) & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 478 . 11. The following points of determination arises for consideration in this case:- a. Whether the selection process was vitiated by re-scheduling of date and time of written examination and viva-voce examination? b. Whether the selection process was vitiated by de-reservation of posts reserved for serving contingency staff? c. Whether the selection process was vitiated by gross illegality in the conduct of selection process? d. Whether the present challenge is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had unsuccessfully participated in the selection process? Point of determination no. (a): 12. It is seen that from the admit cards annexed to the writ petition at page-60 that (i) the venue of examination has been mentioned as Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Palin; (ii) the date of examination has been mentioned as 21.08.16; (iii) the time of examination has been mentioned as 10.00 a.m. – 13.00 p.m. (1 hr each)- (General English), (General Knowledge), Elementary Mathematics). In the nota bene it has been specifically mentioned that “due to inconvenience exam will be held on a single day i.e. 21.08.16 only). Thus, after participating in the selection process on the basis of admit card which contains clear information that exam would be held on 1 (one) day, the Court is of the considered opinion that the present challenge by the petitioners is not maintainable on this particular ground. Moreover, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have disclosed in their affidavit-in-opposition about the compelling reasons for scaling down the date and time of the written examination, which cannot be said to be unjustified. Therefore, the Court is inclined to answer the point of determination no. (a) by holding that the selection process was not vitiated merely because of re-scheduling of the date and time of the written and viva voce examination. Therefore, the Court is inclined to answer the point of determination no. (a) by holding that the selection process was not vitiated merely because of re-scheduling of the date and time of the written and viva voce examination. Point of determination no. (b): 13. It is not in dispute that under the recruitment rules, 25% of posts was to be reserved for serving contingency staff and that 11 (eleven) posts of MTS and 2 (two) posts of MPW were kept reserved for serving contingency staff. However, as the District Selection Board found that none of the serving contingency staff were eligible for being selected as MTS and MPW and it is thus, projected that posts reserved for serving contingency staff were de-reserved in respect of Kra Daadi District. In the present case in hand, none of the petitioners have claimed that they are serving contingency staff. Hence, the petitioners cannot have a valid grievance in this regard and thus, the present challenge is not sustainable on this particular ground. Accordingly, in this case in hand, the question as to whether or not the action of the respondent authorities in de-reservation of posts was permissible is only academic and no fruitful purpose would be served in deciding this point and hence, the point is left open to be decided in a more appropriate case. Point of determination no. (c): 14. There is no dispute at the Bar with regard to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel of the private respondents as well as the learned departmental counsel that the termination of service of 9 (nine) out of 11 (eleven) persons against whom observations were made in the report of the Fact Finding Committee, have assailed the said report dated 14.10.2016 before this Court by filing a writ petition, which has been registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 47(AP)/2017, which is pending for disposal before this Court. Therefore, when the said report is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, the Court declines to make any observations on the tenability of such report, as it may prejudice the parties to the said writ petition. 15. Be that as it may, in the present case in hand, the petitioners have not made any pleadings to provide any particulars other than the contents of the report dated 14.10.2016 of the Fact Finding Committee. 15. Be that as it may, in the present case in hand, the petitioners have not made any pleadings to provide any particulars other than the contents of the report dated 14.10.2016 of the Fact Finding Committee. The said report indicates that out of 11 (eleven) persons appointed, the service of 9 (nine) persons have been terminated. Therefore, when the Fact Finding Committee had given its report to the Government, and the Government had taken action on the basis of the said report. Hence, it cannot be said that the entire selection process was vitiated by gross irregularity. 16. Moreover, as per the contents of the report of the Fact Finding Committee, they had verified the educational certificates of candidates from the internet. However, the petitioners have not made any attempt to cement the contents of the report by verifying the authenticity of the educational certificates of the particular candidates from the concerned Board/ Examination Authority or from the respective schools. Nonetheless, merely because some candidates manage to obtain the admit cards on the basis of fake documents, it cannot be said that there was large scale anomaly in the selection process. It is not the case of the petitioners that the examination invigilators had permitted cheating or allowed proxy candidates to sit in the examination. No other method of committing large scale anomaly has been alleged in the writ petition. 17. Thus, after the service of the allegedly tainted candidates who had appeared in the examination based on documents which was verified by the Fact Finding Committee, the Court is constrained to hold that the selection process cannot be said to have been vitiated by gross illegality in the conduct of selection process and the point of determination no. (c) is answered accordingly. Point of determination no. (d): 18. In the present case in hand, from the discussions on the point of determination no. (a), (b) and (c), it is seen that the selection process is not found to be vitiated by illegality and/or gross irregularity. Thus, in respect of the point of determination no. (a) above, the ratio of the case of D.SarojaKumari (supra), decided by the Supreme Court of India would apply because though from the admit card, the petitioners were aware of the change in date and time of the exam, they had participated in the exam without any demur. 19. Thus, in respect of the point of determination no. (a) above, the ratio of the case of D.SarojaKumari (supra), decided by the Supreme Court of India would apply because though from the admit card, the petitioners were aware of the change in date and time of the exam, they had participated in the exam without any demur. 19. Nonetheless, on the point of determination no. (b) and (c), it can be said that by agreeing to participate in the selection process the candidate only accepts the prescribed procedure and not illegality in it. Thus, in the said context, the ratio of the case of Dr. (Maj.) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1632, is found to apply, wherein the Supreme Court of India had held that even after participating in the process without challenging it, the selection process can be challenged because a candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not illegality in it and that in a case where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate had partaken in it. In this regard it was further observed that in fact, a candidate may not have locusto assail the incurable illegality or derogation of provisions of Constitution unless he/she participates in the selection process. 20. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, it is held that from the contents of the admit card, the petitioners were aware about the change of date and timing of the exams and therefore, on the said ground, this writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners had participated in the examination without any demur. However, in respect of the issue of de-reservation of posts reserved for serving contingency staff and challenge to the selection process if the selection process was vitiated by gross illegality in the conduct of selection process, on facts unique to this case, the present writ petition is held to be maintainable. The point of determination no. (d) is answered accordingly. 21. In view of the discussions above, the present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 22. Before parting with the records, it is clarified that none of the observations made herein is intended to prejudice the parties to the proceedings of W.P.(C) 47(AP)/2017.