ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “1. The impugned notification i.e. Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-serviceman) Rules, 1988 (Annexure-6) and the notification dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-7) may kindly be declared ultra vires to the extent these are not specifying for the reservation of Ex-serviceman to the respective category to the extent of 12.5% and the same may be ordered to be accordingly implemented while preparing final select list and issuing appointment order in pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.10.2016 read with the last amended corrigendum dated 23.08.2019 in the interest of justice. 2. The impugned order of appointment dated 07.07.2021 to the extent of the private respondents who have been wrongly given benefits of Ex- serviceman may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same may be ordered to be revised by way of properly implementing the Ex-serviceman category reservation and accordingly the humble petitioners may be considered for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.10.2016 read with the last corrigendum dated 23.08.2019 in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.10.2016, the petitioners applied for the post of Sub Inspectors. After issuance of appointment order dated 07.07.2021 issued by the respondents to the successful candidates, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not properly implemented the reservation policy with regard to ex-serviceman category person. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not given 12.5% reservation categorywise in the selection process. Counsel further submits that the respondents became wise and subsequently issued a notification dated 07.12.2022 in The Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-serviseman) Rules, 1988, whereby now they have provided the categorywise reservation in direct recruitment. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General as well as counsel for the RPSC appearing on behalf of the respondents have opposed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection process has already been over after issuance of appointment order in the year 2021 on 07.07.2021. Counsel further submits that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2016 and the petitioners after completion of selection process challenged the same criteria applied for reservation for the ex-serviceman category person. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection process has already been over after issuance of appointment order in the year 2021 on 07.07.2021. Counsel further submits that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2016 and the petitioners after completion of selection process challenged the same criteria applied for reservation for the ex-serviceman category person. Learned counsel further submits that the selection process has already been completed and now vide notification dated 07.12.2022, the Rules have been suitably amended and they have now provided category-wise reservation for the ex-serviceman in direct recruitment. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357 in paras No.13 to 18 has held as under:- “13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002), this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India Vs. Vinodh Kumar MANU/SC/7926/2007 :(2007) 3 SCC 100, this Court held that: “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part, in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission). 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part ina selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. 15. In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) “16. 15. In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than19% 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 inthe 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J &K, Marripati Nagarajav. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamaniv. Indian Airlines. 16.In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The Appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. 17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi,candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the Respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the Respondents were disentitled to seek relief Under Article 226and would be deemed to have waived the irright to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that(SCC P.318, para18) “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome”.18.In Chandigarh Admn. This Court held that(SCC P.318, para18) “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome”.18.In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes acalculated risk or chance by subjecting himsel for herself to the selection process cannot turnaround and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non- selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that:(SCC P.500, para17) “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews wereconducted.” This principle has been reiterated in a recentjudgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam.” 7. This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, firstly, the petitioners are estopped to challenge the selection process after participating in the said process as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. (supra) . Secondly, the respondents have now amended the Rules suitably and at the time of recruitment, the respondents have applied the Rules, which were prevailing at that point of time. Thirdly, in our considered view no error has been committed by the respondents in issuance of appointment order to successful candidates by applying the reservation policy as applicable at that point of time. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.