JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Meena Devi, had initially filed Original Application No.670 of 2017 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal; and upon its abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.3361 of 2020, seeking the following relief:- “(a). That this original application may kindly be allowed and the selection of the respondent No.4 as Language Teacher may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to re-draw the merit of the candidates excluding the merit of the TET. ” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner having passed Matriculation Examination, Senior Secondary (Plus Two) Examination, B.A. (Pass Course) III Year Examination, Master of Arts in Hindi and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from University of Kashmir, Srinagar [as per the certificate issued on 02.09.2004, at Page 20 of Paper Book] and having passed Language Teachers Eligibility Test (LT-TET) in the year 2013 was eligible for post of Language Teacher as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 16.11.2013 [Annexure A-1] and though Respondent No.3 [Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Bilaspur, initiated the selection process for filling up various posts of Language Teachers including four posts reserved for Scheduled Castes [SC] category in the month of July 2017 and pursuant to commencement of selection process, the petitioner was called for interview by Respondent No.3 as per communication dated 14.07.2017 [Annexure A-3] and she appeared in Interview on 24.07.2017, and a total of 24 candidates participated in Interview including Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi], leading to selection of Respondent No.4 as a Language Teacher by the Respondents. In this backdrop, the grievance is that the petitioner has higher overall merit of 140.69 marks [excluding TET marks], whereas, Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] had 138.73 marks [excluding TET marks], yet, the non-selection of the petitioner, despite having higher overall merit and selection of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] who had lesser overall marks was illegal, arbitrary and thus in this backdrop, Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] as a Language Teacher has been questioned, with the prayer to set-aside her appointment and to appoint the petitioner as Language Teacher, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3-STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 01.01.2018, Respondents 1 to 3/ State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 30.11.2018, of Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3-STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 01.01.2018, Respondents 1 to 3/ State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 30.11.2018, of Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit raises an objection that the petitioner was not maintainable. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the applicant and other candidates were called for interview on 24.07.2017 in the office of Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and candidates who secured more marks as per the entries for batch-wise selection, were selected/appointed as Language Teachers on contractual basis. Reply-Affidavit indicates that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules the batch-wise selection for post of Language Teacher is made on the basis of seniority of within a batch, which is selected from the date of issuance of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Degree and Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] has been selected as Language Teacher, in accordance with the Rules. It is in this backdrop, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. SEPARATE REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.4: 4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 01.01.2018, Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] has filed a separate reply. 4(i). Paragraph No.3 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] had been appointed as Language Teacher in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is further averred that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules expressly provide that in case within a batch, more than one candidate has passed the final examination certificate of B.Ed. on same day, then, in such an eventuality, inter-se seniority is to be determined on the basis of marks secured in LT-TET by the respective candidates. In this backdrop, Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] has set up a case that once the Petitioner and Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] had passed B.Ed. Examination on same day, i.e., 02.09.2004, then, appointment to post of Language Teacher to be made on the basis of LT-TET merit of candidates within a batch. Petitioner and Respondent No.4 passed the B.Ed. on same day i.e. on 02.09.2004, then, in such an eventuality the selection of Respondent No.4 on the basis of LT-TET merit was in accordance with the extant Statutory Rules and in these circumstances, prayer was made for dismissal of writ petition. REJOINDER TO REPLIES BY PETITIONER: 5. Petitioner and Respondent No.4 passed the B.Ed. on same day i.e. on 02.09.2004, then, in such an eventuality the selection of Respondent No.4 on the basis of LT-TET merit was in accordance with the extant Statutory Rules and in these circumstances, prayer was made for dismissal of writ petition. REJOINDER TO REPLIES BY PETITIONER: 5. Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply of Official Respondents No.1 to 3, reiterating that once the merit of the petitioner was 140.69 marks [excluding TET merit] vis-à-vis lesser overall merit of 138.73 marks of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi], therefore, the averments made in the writ petition were reiterated, with the prayer for quashing her appointment. 6. Heard, Ms. Chetna Thakur, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Learned Advocate, for Respondent No.4. 7. For appreciating the controversy, it is necessary to have a recap of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of Language Teacher at relevant time, i.e. Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department Language Teacher, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), (First Amendment) Rules notified on 16.11.2013, [Annexure A-1] read as under:- “(a). Essential Qualification: i) B.A. with Hindi as an elective subject and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known). BA with atleast 50% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed). OR BA with at least 45% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. OR BA with at least 50% marks with Hindi as an elective subject and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed) Special Education. OR Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) with 50% marks followed by B.A. Examination (English and one additional subject) with 50% marks from a recognized University and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed). OR MA (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from recognized university and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed). AND ii) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET Language Teacher) duly conducted by HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala. OR MA (Hindi) with at least 50% marks from recognized university and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed). AND ii) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET Language Teacher) duly conducted by HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala. Provided that the incumbents who have already qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur shall also be eligible subject to the condition as laid down in Para-1 of the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education vide No.76-4/2010/NCTE/A CAD. Dated 11.02.2011. Note (1):- Relaxation up to 5% will be allowed in minimum educational qualifications and also in minimum qualifying marks for TET to the candidates belong to SC/ST/OBC/PH categories of Himachal Pradesh. Note (2):- Relaxation to those persons who are not B.Ed. and possess the academic qualification prescribed in Column- 7 (a) above shall also be eligible for appearing in TET up to 31st March, 2014 only. Note (3):- The persons possessing graduation with 50% marks in the relevant subject shall also be eligible for appearing in TET for LT upto 31st March, 2014. Note (4):- Priority shall be given to those eligible candidates who possess the minimum qualifications specified in NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, as amended from time to time and thereafter other candidates will be considered with the relaxed qualifications. This relaxation shall be valid up to 31.3.2014. Note (5):- Teachers who are appointed under the relaxed qualification norms shall have to acquire the minimum qualification within a period of two years from the year of appointment. (b) for the existing provisions against Col. No. 10, the following shall be substituted namely:- “A) 75% by direct recruitment on regular basis or on contract basis as the case may be in the following manner:- i) 37.5% through the concerned recruiting agency. ii) 37.5% by batch wise at the department level. B) 25% by promotion from amongst JBT working in Govt. Primary Schools fulfilling minimum requirement as per R&P Rules appearing at Col. No.7, failing which by direct recruitment on regular or on contract basis. Note(i): For batch wise recruitment to be made up to 31.03.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of BA, with Hindi as elective subject/ BA after Prabhakar by passing English and additional subject/M.A. Hindi on the basis of which eligibility of the candidate is reckoned. Note(i): For batch wise recruitment to be made up to 31.03.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of BA, with Hindi as elective subject/ BA after Prabhakar by passing English and additional subject/M.A. Hindi on the basis of which eligibility of the candidate is reckoned. (ii) For batch wise recruitment to be made after 31.3.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed). If more than one candidate has been issued the final examination certificate on the same date then the inter-se-seniority would be determined on the basis of TET (LT Hindi) merit and in the event of TET merit being same senior in age would get precedence over junior in age.” ANALYSIS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record and the Statutory Rules; this Court is of the considered view that the selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] as Language Teacher does not suffer from any illegality and the same is upheld, for the following reasons:- 8(i). Indisputably, in July 2017, the selection process was initiated for filling up 20 posts of Language Teacher, including four posts meant for Scheduled Castes [SC] candidates, by batch-wise Recruitment-Interviews/Counselling were held on 24.07.2017 and pursuant to Interview conducted in accordance with the Statutory Rules, the Official Respondents selected Respondent No. 4 [Pushpa Devi] for the post of Language Teacher, whereas the Petitioner [Meena Devi] was not selected/appointed. SELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER MERIT IN TET BASED ON RULES VALID: 8(ii). Perusal of Note (ii) to Rule 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 16.11.2013 [Annexure A-1], (supra) indicates that for batch-wise recruitment to the post of Language Teacher after 31.03.2014, the batch would be reckoned from the date of issuance of original Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) certificate. The aforesaid Rule indicates that if more than one candidate has been issued the final examination certificate on the same day, then the inter-se-seniority would be determined on the basis of TET (LT Hindi) merit, with the further stipulation that in case, the TET merit is same, then, the candidate who is senior in age would get precedence over junior in age. 8(iii). 8(iii). Perusal of result sheet [at page No.28 of Paper Book] indicates that the Petitioner [Meena Devi] and Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] both were issued the final examination certificate of B.Ed. on the same day i.e. 02.09.2004, therefore, in such an eventuality, the inter-se seniority would be determined on the basis of Teacher Eligibility Test [LT-TET] merit by applying the Statutory Rules, once the batch of the petitioner as well as private respondent was same [2004 batch of B.Ed.] and even the date of passing Bachelor of Education [B.Ed.] Examination was also same [02.09.2004] then, the Inter-se seniority was reckonable on the basis of LT-TET merit. Based on this, once the petitioner had lesser TET marks of 85 vis-à-vis the higher TET marks of 96 obtained by the Private Respondent, therefore, the selection of the Private Respondent on the basis of higher marks in TET merit is in accordance with law. STATUTORY RULES NOT CHALLENGED: 8(iv). Petitioner has not laid a challenge the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified for the post of Language Teacher by the State Authorities on 16.11.2013 [Annexure A-1]. Unless and until Rule 10 and/or Note (ii) of the above Recruitment and Promotion Rules were assailed and adjudicated upon, then presumption of constitutionality of the Statuary Rules is presumed by treating the Rules in force, at the relevant time to be intra vires the Constitution of India. Pertinently, once Note (ii) under Rule 10 of the Statutory Rules prescribed the mode of selection, in case, more than once candidate belong to same batch of B.Ed., then, inter-se seniority amongst candidates of same batch was to be determined on the basis of TET [LT-TET] merit. In these circumstances, once the extant Statutory Rules prescribe the mode and manner of selection for post of Language Teacher and the State Authorities have selected Private Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] in accordance with extant Rules, then, the selection of Respondent No.4 suffers from no illegality or infirmity. Thus, not laying a challenge to Statutory Rules disentitles the petitioner for any relief. ABSENCE OF BIAS-ARBITRARINESS OR INFRACTION OF STATUTORY RULES DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR RELIEFS: 8(v). Thus, not laying a challenge to Statutory Rules disentitles the petitioner for any relief. ABSENCE OF BIAS-ARBITRARINESS OR INFRACTION OF STATUTORY RULES DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR RELIEFS: 8(v). Perusal of the result sheet [Annexure A-4] reveals that Private Respondent No.4-Pushpa Devi, has been selected as Language Teacher, under batch- wise recruitment in accordance with the Statutory Rules, on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Bilaspur, as Chairman and two other members of Selection Committee. Writ petition does not contain averments revealing arbitrariness, infraction of Rules or bias against the members of the Selection Committee. In the absence of such allegations, the selection conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee is not liable to be interfered with in any manner, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305 , affirming the selection made by duly considered Selection Committee is not be interfered with, whereas, it reveals established malafides or suffers from illegality or bias. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such eventuality has taken place in instant case and in these circumstances, the non-selection of the petitioner and selection of Respondent No.4 does not suffer from any illegality. 8(vi). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner had higher overall merit with 140.69 marks [excluding TET marks] vis-à-vis the lower merit of Respondent No. 4 with 138.73 marks, then, petitioner [Meena Devi] having a higher overall merit had a right to be appointed over and above Respondent No.4. The above contention is misconceived, for the reasons, firstly, as per Note (ii) under Rule 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2013 [Annexure A-1], once the batch-wise recruitment is to be made on the date of issuance of original B.Ed. Certificate within a batch and in case two or more candidates were issued the B.Ed. Certificate on same date then, in such an eventuality, the inter-se seniority within the same batch is to be determined on the basis of TET [LT-TET] merit of candidates; and secondly, once the Statutory Rules expressly provide the mode and manner of selection, when, two or more candidates belong to same batch and were issued B.Ed. Certificate on same date then, in such an eventuality, the inter-se seniority within the same batch is to be determined on the basis of TET [LT-TET] merit of candidates; and secondly, once the Statutory Rules expressly provide the mode and manner of selection, when, two or more candidates belong to same batch and were issued B.Ed. Certificates on same day, then, the TET merit was to prevail; and thirdly, the higher overall merit of petitioner [excluding TET merit] cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in facts of instant case; and fourthly, the higher overall merit of the petitioner [excluding TET merit] could not be invoked by the petitioner so as to act dehors the mandate of Rule 10 and Note (ii) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2013 [Annexure A-1] and that too in a situation, governing selection of candidates of same batch, who were issued B.Ed. Certificate on same date, in which event, selection was to be made on basis of TET merit; and fifthly, accepting the contention of the petitioner shall render the express mandate of Rule 10 and Note (ii) nugatory and otiose which cannot be permitted; and lastly, the selection of Respondent No.4-Pushpa Devi, on basis of TET merit to give effect to the Statutory Rules does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. NO LOCUS TO ASSAIL NON-SELECTION AFTER HAVING PARTICIPATED AND REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL: 8(vii). Pursuant to commencement of selection process, in July 2017, petitioner [Meena Devi] was called for Interview-Counselling alongwith Respondent No.4 and others in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2013 [Annexure A-1], petitioner participated in the selection process without any demur or protest and after having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around by appointing and reprobating by assailing her non-selection, when, the selection was made in accordance with the Statutory Rules and the selection does not suffer from any established malafides, infraction or bias. Having participated and remained unsuccessful, petitioner [Meena Devi] has no right to question the method of selection and its outcome from assailing the selection of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi], in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and others Versus Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 ; Pradeep Kumar Rai and others Versus Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others, (2015) 11 SCC 493 ; Paras 65 to 69 Tajvir Singh Versus State of Jammu Kashmir and Ors. 2023 SCC Online 344; and Civil Appeal No.14524 of 2015, Union of India & Ors. Versus AIR Commodore N.K. Sharma (17038) ADM/LGL, decided on 14.12.2023, in the following terms:- “28.4 Challenging the basis of promotion after having participated in the process on consideration of promotion and having been declared unsuccessful thereunder, is not a valid ground to impugn the policy/method. Repeatedly, this Court has held that such challenges cannot be allowed. On this, we may refer to certain past instances: – 28.4.1 In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey it was observed:- “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 were conducted.” 28.4.2 In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi it was observed:- “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.” 28.4.3 Recently, in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of Jammu Kashmir & Ors having considered a number of earlier decisions, it was held by this Court that:- “69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. v. State of Jammu Kashmir & Ors having considered a number of earlier decisions, it was held by this Court that:- “69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.” 28.5 In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Respondent’s challenge was barred at first instance, as he participated in the Promotion Board of 2015 and only challenged the non- formation of a policy for filling up the vacancy of AVM JAG (Air), finding himself to be unsuccessful in securing a promotion thereto.” Thus, in view of settled law, the petitioner is disentitled for any relief. 9. No other point was pressed/argued. DIRECTIONS: 10. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition, is dismissed, in the following terms:- (i) Non-selection of the petitioner [Meera Devi] as Language Teacher does not suffers from any infirmity; (ii) Selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 [Pushpa Devi] as Language Teacher in pursuance to commencement of selection process in July, 2017 [Annexure A-3] being in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules is upheld; and (iii) Parties to bear respective costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.