ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Mr.Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General with Mr.Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- “10.1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ to declared that rule 8 (II) [col- umn (5) of Scheduled-III (Sl.No.12 Hand Pump Techni- cian)] of Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Depart- ment (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 (Annexure P-1) published in Chhattisgarh Raj Patra notification dated 30th December 2016 is Ultra Vires. 10.2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and placed the word one year course certificate from ITI in mechanical trade as per courses prescribed in ITI. 10.3) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the decision of respondent in counseling dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) in respect of petitioners. 10.4) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ for declaring that petitioners are eligible for post of Hand Pump Technician as per one year certificate issued by the ITI and Craftsmen Training Scheme of State of Chhattisgarh accordingly ensure the selection and recruitment of the petitioners. 10.5) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ and declared that PHED Rules 2016 and selection process of the respondent are violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. 10.6) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be pleased to grant to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.1 published a advertisement on 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) for direct recruitment of Hand Pump Technician for 188 posts in which 69 posts are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Petitioners No.1 and 2 belong to the Scheduled Tribes category and petitioner No.3 belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioners applied for the post of Head Pump Technician and submitted their applications through online in the site of Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur. As per scheduled for examination of Hand Pump Technician Recruitment Exam 2023 held on 24th September, 2023, the petitioners participated in the said examination. The petitioners applied for the post of Head Pump Technician and submitted their applications through online in the site of Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur. As per scheduled for examination of Hand Pump Technician Recruitment Exam 2023 held on 24th September, 2023, the petitioners participated in the said examination. After examination, the Chhattisgarh Pprofessional Examination Board issued a combined merit wise list on 06.10.2023 in which the petitioners found their names in page 7 of the list serial No.377 for petitioner No.1, page 4 of the list serial No.214 and page 1 list at serial No.38. The respondents issued a letter for connseling and verification of documents and scheduled the date on 23.1.2024, as per memorandum of the respondents. As per scheduled of counseling and document verification, the petitioners appeared before the selection committee on 23.01.2024 and produced all the relevant documents like marks sheet and others, in which marks sheet of the ITI was for diesel mechanic issued by the ITI have been produced which shows that one year course have been done by all the petitioners, but unfortunately later on, the petitioners have been declared ineligible on the ground that the petitioners have submitted one year certificate, whereas the departmental recruitment rules and advertisement determined two years certificate. The petitioners found their names in the list of details of ineligible candidates in serial Nos.18,16 and 14 for respective petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 8 (II) [column (5) of Scheduled-III (Sl.No.13 Hand Pump Technician)] of Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non- Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 2016’) is Ultra Vires because ITI in the State had been established since 1950 and Craftsmen Training Scheme (Annexure P/4) reflects that in the Engineering Trade there are two years course and one year course. Under the mechanical trade fitter, instruments mechanic, diesel mechanic, motor mechanic, tractor mechanic courses are available. Diesel mechanic and tractor mechanic comes under the mechanical trade, which is only one year course which reflects from page 76 of the writ petition. He further submits that on the earlier occasion the respondents themselves declare Diesel Mechanic as eligible candidate which has been reflected from the earlier appointments. Diesel mechanic and tractor mechanic comes under the mechanical trade, which is only one year course which reflects from page 76 of the writ petition. He further submits that on the earlier occasion the respondents themselves declare Diesel Mechanic as eligible candidate which has been reflected from the earlier appointments. He also submits that Rule 8 (II) of the Rules 2016 for appointment of Hand Pump Technician disclosed that selection and appointment are ultra vires as well discrimination with the petitioners amongst others. Respondent No.4 and ITI itself adopted a procedure of one year for Hand Pump Technician under the mechanical trade, therefore, in place of two years course from ITI it must be replaced with two years and one year course certificate from ITI. He contended that Rule 8(II) column 5 of Scheduled-III serial No.13 Hand Pump Technician required qualification violates the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and Rule 8 (II) [column (5) of Scheduled-III (Sl.No.12 Hand Pump Technician)] of Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Sevice) Rules, 2016 (Annexure P-1) published in Chhattisgarh Raj Patra notification dated 30th December 2016 deserves to be declared ultra vires. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General with Mr.Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Rule 8 (II) [column (5) of Scheduled-III (Sl.No.13 Hand Pump Technician)] of Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Sevice) Rules, 2016 published in Chhattisgarh Gazette notification dated 30th December 2016 provides that for Hand Pump Technician, the candidate must have passed Higher Secondary Examination or passed 10+2 examination and have passed 2 years course certificate from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Fitter Trade or Mechanical Trade or Motor Mechanical Trade, Tractor Mechanical Trade, Automobile Mechanic Trade and Machinist Trade. Reference will be given to Fitter Trade. He further submits that vagueness in the Rule, if any, cannot be challenged by the petitioners after having appeared in the examination and having been declared unsuccessful in the said examination. He further submits that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere in purely academic matters and should not substitute its own views as to what is wise. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. He further submits that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere in purely academic matters and should not substitute its own views as to what is wise. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have perused the writ petition and other documents appended with it. 7. It is trite law that a candidate taking a calculated chance by appearing in the examination after knowing fully well the procedural norms and eligibility qualification and only because the result of examination is not palatable to him, cannot turn around and subsequently, question the method of selection/eligibility qualification. The Supreme Court time and again in umpteen number of cases has laid down the law in this regard. Following judgments may be noticed usefully and profitably herein. 8. In the matter of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 in similar fact situation, the Supreme Court has held that a candidate who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision unpalatable and question the method of selection. Paragraph 9 of the report states 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 Respondents concerned 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 Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. 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, 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 the 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 the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 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." 9. Aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal (supra) has been followed with approval in the matters of Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 , Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 and Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 3643 . 10. In the matter of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 , the Supreme Court has held that the courts should not ordinarily interfere in purely academic matters and should not substitute its own views by observing as under: - “29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.” 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the petitioners having appeared in the recruitment process consciously and willingly, cannot be allowed to question the process of selection. The petitioners took a calculated chance to get a berth in the said recruitment but finding that they are not selected, they decided to file writ questioning the Rule that it is not in accordance with law. The petitioners cannot be allowed to act in such a manner on the principle of law laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal (supra) reiterated in subsequent judgments. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, further considering Rule 8 (II) [column (5) of Scheduled-III (S.No.13 Hand Pump Technician) of the Rules 2016 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the candidate must have passed Higher Secondary Examination or passed 10+2 examination and have passed 2 years course certificate from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Fitter Trade or Mechanical Trade or Motor Mechanical Trade, Tractor Mechanical Trade, Automobile Mechanic Trade and Machinist Trade. Reference will be given to Fitter Trade, further considering that Fitter trade is two years course and Mechanic (Diesel), Mechanic (Tractor) is one year course which reflects from page 76 of the writ petition, also considering that the petitioners took a calculated chance to get a berth in the said recruitment but finding that they are not selected, they decided to file writ questioning the Rule that it is not in accordance with law and perusing the other documents, we do not find any force in this writ petition. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).