The regulations gave uncanalized discretion to the Commission, violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - This is a writ petition which has changed its colour during its pendency, like the proverbial chameleon. Initially it was a writ petition seeking a consideration of the case of the petitioners regarding selection afresh in the post of Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) by the West Bengal College Service Commission by calling for written examination and further for not giving effect to the selection process advertised by the advertisement No. 1/2015. It was naturally at the instance of unsuccessful candidates.

2. However, as I have indicated above the writ petition changed its hue after an application for amendment was taken up after completion of affidavits in the original writ petition. By such amendment a challenge to the vires of regulations No. 1 and 6 of the West Bengal College Service Commission (Manner of Selection of Persons for Appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Principals and Librarians and Re-recommendation of Assistant Professor) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations of 2012") were challenged. Consequential reliefs were prayed for by amendment. According to the petitioners these regulations are the repository of arbitrariness which has rendered them ultra vires the Constitution of India more particularly Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India.

3. When the matter was first mentioned before this Court for hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the affidavits were completed even in respect of the amended petition. This is according to the order dated June 14, 2019. However, it appears that the college Service Commission had not filed any opposition and so I granted further leave on July 1, 2019 to the College Service Commission to file its affidavit.

4. Mr. Mondal appearing on behalf of the College Service Commission, at the outset challenged the maintainability of the writ petition for the following reasons:-

a. The writ petition raises questions in respect of a process of selection where the writ petitionersare unsuccessful candidates. .

b. Whether the said questions could be raised by unsuccessful candidate in the process of selection who after full notice and knowledge of the advertisement and the regulations appeared in the interview without being called for a preliminary written test? This is, in fact, a part of the writ petitioners' challenge, that there is no canalization when a written test will be held first and then an interview, or only interview will be held, without any preliminary written test, based on the eligibility criteria as advertised

Implied in such submissions, are the catena of cases where it has been held that an unsuccessful candidate, after participating in a process of selection and failing therein, cannot turn around and challenge the process of selection, having waived his right to do so, and being estopped. Tracing these objections to their source, we shall find that they are based on a waiver by the unsuccessful candidate of his right, in respect of those things which he knew or was deemed to have known at the time he participated in the process of selection. If he could show that the part of the selection procedure complained of was not a part of what he knew or should have known at the time when he participated in such process, then of course the question of waiver would not arise.

c. Whether the writ petitioners have joined together separate causes of action without the leave of the Court? This is not permissible since each writ petitioner has a separate legal right and despite there being no common order alleged to have been passed against all of the petitioners, the several causes of action have been joined together without leave of the Court.

d. There are no pleadings that the writ petitioners form a homogeneous class or how they form such a homogenous class which pleading alone, would have allowed all the writ petitioners to maintain the writ petition as a