JUDGMENT : C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7891 of 2014, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 08.02.2018, has filed the present writ appeal. 2 . W.P.(MD)No.7891 of 2014 had been filed in the naure of the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking the records relating to the notices issued by the second respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Thanjavur District, in proceedings TNSTC/KUM/HRD/800/13 dated 31.10.2013 and 20.11.2013, and to quash the same insofar as they relate to the non-selection of the appellant/petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Thanjavur District. 3 . In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was contended that the appellant/writ petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering. His name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam. He participated in the selection process; however, he was not informed about the result. Consequently, he filed W.P.(MD)No.17247 of 2013, pursuant to which the respondents were directed to publish the results. The results were subsequently published, and the appellant/writ petitioner found that he had not been selected. He therefore filed the present writ petition challenging the notification issued for the selection process and impleaded the selected candidates as respondents 4 to 10. 4 . A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent, stating that the Employment Exchange, Sivagangai, had been requested to sponsor candidates for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee). A list of 24 persons was received from the Employment Exchange, and all of them, including the appellant/writ petitioner, were called for the interview. 5 . However, only 16 candidates attended the interview. It was contended that, after following the due selection process, the Selection Committee selected seven candidates, in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations governing the selection. 6 . It was further contended that the appellant/writ petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions for selection and was, therefore, not selected by the Selection Committee. The recruitment was carried out based on the existing procedure. It was therefore contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 7 . 6 . It was further contended that the appellant/writ petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions for selection and was, therefore, not selected by the Selection Committee. The recruitment was carried out based on the existing procedure. It was therefore contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 7 . Thereafter, the appellant / writ petitioner filed a further affidavit, expanding the scope of the Writ Petition by contending that the selection should have been restricted only to candidates from Sivagangai District, but however, candidates from Ramanathapuram and Pudukottai Districts had also been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, and those who were ultimately selected belonged to those Districts. It was therefore contended that the selection process ought to be revisited and set aside by this Court. 8 . The learned Single Judge, while examining the credentials of the appellant/writ petitioner, observed that since the appellant/writ petitioner had participated in the selection process, he could not be permitted to challenge it. It was also stated that the respondents had duly considered the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner and found that there were more meritorious candidates, who were accordingly selected. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition. 9 . In this Writ Appeal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and contended that the selected candidates hailed from Districts other than Sivagangai, whereas the appellant/writ petitioner, who had been sponsored by the Sivagangai Employment Exchange, was not selected. 10 . It was further contended that the respondents had indicated that one post was vacant for each of the following Districts: Sivagangai, Pudukottai, Ariyalur, Ramanathapuram, Tiruchirappalli, and Karur. However, contrary to that representation, five candidates had been selected from Pudukottai District and two candidates from Ramanathapuram District. 11 . The learned Additional Advocate General, however, assailed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner by pointing out one of the specific criteria for selection, namely, that the candidate should be below 35 years of age. It was categorically submitted that the maximum age limit for candidates belonging to the BC, MBC, and DNC categories was 35 years, whereas the appellant/writ petitioner was 35 years and 5 months old and, therefore, he was over and above the prescribed age limit. 12 . It was on this ground that the Selection Committee had found the appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible. 12 . It was on this ground that the Selection Committee had found the appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible. A document in support of this submission was also produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. This is a factual aspect which could not be denied or disputed by the appellant. It is thus evident that the appellant/writ petitioner was over and above the prescribed age limit of 35 years as on the crucial date of the selection process. 13 . In State of Haryana and others vs. Ram Kumar Mann reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a petitioner approaching the Court must possess a legally enforceable right before disputing the status of the respondents. 14 . In the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess any legally enforceable right, as he was clearly above the prescribed maximum age limit of 35 years for BC, MBC, and DNC candidates on the crucial date of the selection process. 15 . In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147 : AIR 2023 SC 2014 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the right to challenge the selection process by a participating candidate. In Paragraph 39, it was held as follows:- ''39. 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.'' 16 . 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.'' 16 . Thus, it is clear that the appellant/writ petitioner has no legally enforceable right and, having participated in the selection process and had been found ineligible, has no right to challenge the selection process. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.