IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13150 of 2009 SHASHANK SHEKHAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners appeared in the examination for promotion to the Junior Selection Grade held under Rule 21(5) of the Bihar Civil Court Staffs (Class III & IV) Rules 1998 in the year 2007. Having been unsuccessful in the written examination they now seek to question the very criteria fixed in the Rules by fixation of the qualifying marks as 45 out of 100 to urge that the qualifying marks were wrong and could not have been over 40. Their representation had been rejected. The contention of the petitioners that they were not aware of the qualifying marks does not appeal to this Court. Once the petitioners have appeared at the examination unsuccessfully they cannot turn round and challenge the very criteria in acceptance to which they appeared in the examination. They cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. If an authority be needed reference may be made to 2008(3) PLJR 271 (SC). (Dhananjay Mullick & ors Vrs. State of Utranchal & 2 ors.).Relying upon earlier judgments of the Apex Court it has been held in Paragraph 7, 8 & 9 as follows:- 7. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J and K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. ThisCourt further pointed out 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 3 subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules theycould have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done. 1995 AIR SCW 1109 9. In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examinationwithout any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process. 2007 AIR SCW 6861 The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)