JUDGMENT : Bharati Dangre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Mr. Shubham Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. ‘Rule’. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The position on law by this time is well settled by various authoritative pronouncements that persons having participated in the selection process and taking a chance to get themselves selected, on finding that they have not emerged successful, cannot turn back and question the selection process, calling upon the whole process itself. In Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. ( 1995) 3 SCC 486 , the Apex Court clearly held that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview process and taken a chance to get selected, once he finds himself to be unsuccessful, the challenge on his behalf cannot be entertained. The relevant observations of the Apex Court read thus: - “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 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 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. 4. The said decision is subsequently followed in K.N. Sinha vs. State of Kerala , reported in 2006 (6) SCC 395 and also in the decision in case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Karunesh Kumar and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706, and the position of law that the unsuccessful candidate cannot turn back and assail the selection process, has been reiterated. Though some exceptions have been carved out to the said rule, being when the candidate appears in the examination by recording his protest and participate in the process. 5. The aforesaid law laid down is based on the well-known Principle of approbate and reprobate, and in Karunesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has explained the Principle in the following words: “Here is a case before us which squarely fits into the aforesaid principle of law”. The Government of Goa notified “Manohar Parrikar Goa Scholar Scheme” in the year 2019–20, with an avowed purpose of extending financial support for talented brilliant students, who on account of their qualification, skill, and experience would be in position to contribute towards building up of human capital required by the State for its sustainable development. With the objective highlighted in the scheme, being to promote pursuit of Post Graduate and Doctoral studies by talented younger population of Goa by recognising the meritorious and outstanding candidates by providing the scholarship, both in India and abroad in reputed institutions and to motivate them to take up cutting-edge research, the scheme also intended to boost the efforts of the State in promoting quality education, research and innovation. The schemes so floated, prescribed the eligibility conditions and invited applications, after screening them in the backdrop of the right up, which was indicated in the scheme and names of such candidates were thereafter placed before the Screening Committee, who was competent to recommend the list of the eligible candidates in accordance with the criteria laid down in Clause IX to be placed before the Selection Committee. The Screening Committee comprised of a well-known academician and two members nominated by the Government, along with Director of Higher Education. The criteria for shortlisting the eligible candidates for the Screening Committee were also specifically set out in the scheme The next stage contemplated was consideration of candidature by the Selection Committee, whose composition was also specifically set out in Clause X, the Committee being headed by a well known senior academician of national repute with three other members, including the Secretary, Higher Education as well as the Director, Directorate of Higher Education being appointed as its Member Secretary. The criteria for selection was particularly set out based on a 100 points/marks criteria with the bifurcation of the weightages to be given on different counts when categorically highlighted in the scheme. 6. Upon the scheme being notified for selecting 30 candidates for award on this scholarship, the petitioner was one of the candidate who competed and he was evaluated on the basis of his academic qualification including his grading in Xth and XIIth Std. and in the final list of applicants along with the marks scored for the academic year 2023-24, he found himself placed at Serial No. 23 with the final score as 89.118 marks. This list comprised of 181 candidates. Thereafter, 60 eligible candidates were shortlisted for interview and the petitioner with a score of 89.118 marks was placed at serial no. 23. However, after the conduct of the interview, the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 07/12/2024 and 08/12/2024, recommended the names of 30 candidates for Scholarship and the petitioner was not included. Aggrieved by his non-selection for the Scholarship, the petitioner is before this Court. He also preferred a representation on 26.03.2025, which was rejected on 15.04.2025, and this gave a cause for the petitioner to approach this Court. 7. The learned counsel, Mr. Aggrieved by his non-selection for the Scholarship, the petitioner is before this Court. He also preferred a representation on 26.03.2025, which was rejected on 15.04.2025, and this gave a cause for the petitioner to approach this Court. 7. The learned counsel, Mr. Menezes, after inviting our attention to the Scheme which is annexed at Annexure ‘C’ to the petition and by specifically inviting our attention to the various stages of the process, culminating into the final selection in the meeting held by the Selection Committee of the Manohar Parrikar Goa Scholars Scheme, 2023-2024 has raised a challenge to the entire selection process by asserting two grounds: (i) Firstly, as per the Scheme, it was necessary to have the participation of the Secretary (Higher Education), as a Member of the Selection Committee and it was imperative on his part to have participated in the process, but instead, on 21.11.2024, Dr. Vithal Tilve, Professor, Research, Development & Innovation Cell, was nominated to attend the interview for selection of Goa Scholars under the Manohar Parrikar Goa Scholars Scheme for the academic year 2023-24 for the meeting scheduled on 7 th and 8 th December 2024. 8. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of PM Sunny Vs. State of Kerala , 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 4566 , he made an attempt to submit that if there is no power to delegate the power, in the absence of any authority, it was not open for the Secretary to nominate a person, and the selection involving such a nominee cannot be justified. Other ground which he has pressed in easing challenge, to the process, is the lack of reasoning in the minutes of the meeting, as according to him, there was no definite criteria which was evolved by the Committee to test the 60 candidates who appeared for the interview and thereby reaching a conclusion that 30 candidates are eligible for the said scholarship, and this excluded the petitioner. 9. In order to buttress his submission, he would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Keval Shrihari Ramani Vs. 9. In order to buttress his submission, he would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Keval Shrihari Ramani Vs. State of Goa , 2016 (3) Bom.C.R. 622 , and in particular the observations of the Division Bench to the effect as being: “The Selection Committee, no doubt, is clothed with powers and is free to evolve its own pragmatic functional and viable process of carrying out their duties in selecting the deserving candidates for the subject scholarship. But, this of course is based on natural justice fair play in action, reasonableness in collecting decisional material, avoidance of arbitrariness and extraneous considerations. As such, conducting the interview of the candidates may not be bad but however the total absence of any indication of the criteria adopted in the decision making process can vitiate such action. Therefore, the Selection Committee is expected to record marks at the interviews and disclose the guidelines for such marks and state the remarks about the candidate etc. If the Court is skeptical, the records of the Selection proceedings including the notes regarding the interviews may have to be made available to the Court. Even though there is no ban, it is a rule of prudence that Court should hesitate to dislodge decisions of an academic and illustrious Selection Commit-tees. But, however, such authorities are bound by the Rule of law and cannot be a law unto themselves.” He would also rely upon the said decision for the purpose that, though the Court did not deem it appropriate to disturb the selection of the candidates, that is respondent nos. 3 to 25, a direction was issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for the award of the Goa Scholars Scholarship for the year 2013-2014 afresh in accordance with law. 10. In short, the submission of Mr. Menezes, appearing for the Petitioner, is that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and the Selection Committee did not even evolve a discernible criterion for evaluating the candidates, who had appeared before it for the interview and therefore, the selection of 30 candidates is not justiciable as against the rejection of the petitioner, who was duly eligible for award of this scholarship. 11. The submissions of Mr. 11. The submissions of Mr. Menezes are strongly opposed by learned Advocate General as he would invite our attention to the minutes of the meeting held on 07.012.2024 and 08.12.2024 and according to him, the Committee had applied the parameters strictly in accordance with the scheme for selection and unlike the decision in case of Keval Ramani(supra) , the minutes of meeting disclosed the mind of the Committee and the criterion adopted by it, while it recommended the names of 30 candidates strictly in accordance with minutes. Apart from this, it is also the submission of learned Advocate General that once having participated in the selection process, it is not now open for the petitioner to raise a challenge to the composition of the Selection Committee, and he would rely upon the catena of decisions in support of the proposition which he has canvassed before us. 12. With the able assistance of the respective counsels, we have perused the Scheme very carefully and the process that was adopted by the Selection Committee, whose composition was strictly determined by the Scheme itself. It is not in dispute that the Committee, was to include the Secretary of the Higher Education but a nominee was appointed, but we see no specific prohibition in not doing so and in any case, since we are concerned not with the decision, but the decision making process of the Committee, we have examined the fairness of the procedure that has been followed by it. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he travelled up to the level of interview as 60 candidates were found to be eligible for the interview for the selection of 30 candidates to be awarded the scholarship. Admittedly, the petitioner scored 13 marks in the interview, and his total score according to his over all computation is 71.036 as the petitioner has annexed analysis of the final evaluation sheet, indicating the rank at every stage of evaluation at annexure ‘F’. If we look at the merits secured by the 30 candidates, we find that the last candidate has secured a total number of 76.152 marks, the first candidate having secured 87.577 marks out of 100. If we look at the merits secured by the 30 candidates, we find that the last candidate has secured a total number of 76.152 marks, the first candidate having secured 87.577 marks out of 100. The final evaluation sheet of the 30 selected candidates would thus range between 87.577 marks up to 76.152 marks, and in this scenario the marks scored by the petitioner definitely pushed him down, being 71.036 marks, and therefore, he failed to make it up in the final selection list, which was to be prepared only of 30 candidates. 13. Coming to the objection that the minutes of the meeting did not disclose any reasons or offer any justification for selection of the candidates, we must express our disagreement with Mr. Menezes, as a perusal of the minutes of meeting placed before us as Annexure ‘K’ would clearly reveal that the candidates were tested by the constituted Screening Committee on a 100 point scale, by considering the marks for SSC, HSSC and Bachelor’s Degree. The top 60 candidates out of 181 applicants, scoring 70 points and above, were thereafter shortlisted for the interview as per the approval of the Screening Committee. Admittedly, the petitioner made upto to this list as he was found to have scored more than 70 marks. Thereafter, a consolidated list of candidates, based on their curricular/academic achievements, was prepared and displayed on the website of the Directorate. Based on the data provided by the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, the Selection Committee evaluated the criterions on various prescribed criterions that we have specifically set out in the Scheme itself by giving weightage of 30% for the interview performance, and thereafter, a final sheet was drawn. Based on the data provided by the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, the Selection Committee evaluated the criterions on various prescribed criterions that we have specifically set out in the Scheme itself by giving weightage of 30% for the interview performance, and thereafter, a final sheet was drawn. This according to us, ensured the transparency in the whole selection process and since, the petitioner cannot make it to the list or the number of marks, i.e. 13 marks secured by him in the interview process, as definitely we cannot sit in appeal over the marks allotted at the interview process, and since the Selection Committee had clearly stipulated in its minutes of meeting that the candidate was tested on the known parameters, as far as his extra- curricular activities, and as well as his academic performance, merely because the petitioner has secured 13 marks and pushed down in the select list amongst the 60 candidates and did not make it to the final list, we are not at all convinced to show any indulgence, by setting aside the selection, which according to us, has been done in a fair and transparent manner. 14. The decision in case of Keval Ramani (supra), which is relied by Mr Menezes, needs to be distinguished as in the facts before the Court, which lacked transparency, as the basis on which the final merit list was prepared was not known, and therefore the Court observed that in absence of any reasons being afforded for judging the merit of candidate in the selection process, the process cannot be said to be fair and transparent. 15. Having no merit and substance in the petition, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, we discharge the Rule.