C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the selection made to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala for the reason that the method of selection was subsequently changed by the selection committee by including computer aptitude test. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent(the petitioner in the writ petition), learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the counsel appearing for the party respondents, who took notice on admission.

2. Applications for selection to the post of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department were invited from the employees of the Government Departments on appointment by transfer basis prescribing educational qualifications and the period of service required alternatively in the Class III cadre. Even though the method of selection was not prescribed in the notification dated 3.3.2009 produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition, subsequently, the Director of Social Welfare issued Ext.R5(b) on 23.7.2009 wherein the method of selection was prescribed. It is seen from Ext.R5(b) that a written test has to be conducted for selection and the same was entrusted with a Government agency, namely, I.M.G Out of 100, 70 marks were provided for written examination and 30 marks for interview. Under clause 3 of Ext.R5(b), out of 30 provided for interview, 10 marks were provided for computer aptitude test. Pursuant to the notification inviting applications and based on Ext.R5(b) prescribed subsequently, written test was held on 21.3.2010. Based on the marks obtained in the written test, a short list was prepared and the candidates included in the short list were called for interview. While sending the interview cards, copy of which received by the 1st respondent in the writ appeal who is the petitioner in the writ petition, is produced as Ext.P6, the authorities specifically incorporated the condition in Ext.R5(b) that 10 marks in the interview is for computer aptitude test. Ext.P6 dated 6.7.2010 was issued to the first respondent who came out successfully in the written test and in response to the same, she along with other successful candidates participated in the interview. She got 4 marks out of 10 in the computer aptitude test. When the final rank list was published, the 1st respondent went down in the rank list while several others who scored better were placed above her. At this stage, the 1st respondent filed writ petition contending that the computer aptitude test prescribed subsequently is unauthorised and therefore selection is invalid or at least that part of the selection process involving computer aptitude test should be declared illegal. The learned Single Judge by relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this court held that method of selection is changed by the selection committee by including the computer aptitude test subsequently and therefore he cancelled the selections. The learned Single Judge after cancelling the computer aptitude test, directed fresh selection based on marks obtained in the written test and interview, that is by excluding the marks obtained by all candidates in the computer aptitude test. It is against this judgment, one of the successful candidates who got selection filed this writ appeal.

3. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the learned Single Judge that the selection committee prescribed new norms after inviting applications for selection to the post of Women Protection Officers is factually incorrect. The next contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge and the counsel for the 1st respondent are not applicable in this case in as much as no new norms are prescribed for selection after inviting applications to the detriment of the first respondent. Counsel for the appellant also referred to Annexure I judgment of the very same Single Judge dismissing another writ petition filed by another candidate challenging the very same selection for the reason that after participating in the selection process, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge applied different norms while disposing two writ petitions filed challenging the very same selection. Counsel for the party respondents also supported the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and contended that the 1st respondent having participated in the entire selection process by writing the written test, attended the interview and participated in the computer aptitude test cannot be permitted to challenge the selection for the reason that she got only 4 out of 10 marks in computer aptitude test.

4. During admission of writ appeal, we heard all the parties in detail and also perused the judgment. Before us, counsel for the first respondent has relied on several decisions, particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, and contended that after the commencement of the selection process, no new norms could be included subsequently and the same, if done, will invalidate the selection.

5. From the facts stated above, what is clear is that the selection was proposed from among the Government employees and Ext.P1 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Women Protection Officers did not prescribe any method of selection. None of the applicants who applied for the post including the 1st respondent have a case that the notification inviting applications without prescribing method of selection is invalid. In fact, the method of selection was prescribed by the Social Welfare Department as per Ext.R5(b) which includes prescription of 10 marks for computer aptitude test. The first respondent, who after participating in the entire selection process and after getting enrolled in the rank list challenged the selection process only to the extent of prescription of 10 marks in the computer aptitude test. This is done obviously because she got only 4 out of 10 marks in the computer aptitude test while some others got higher marks, even upto 9 out of 10. The first question to be considered is whether the first respondent who participated in the whole selection process and got in the rank list, though quite low in position should be allowed to challenge the selection merely because she did not get high marks in the computer aptitude test, but got only 40% marks. Obviously, if she had got selection, she would not have challenged the selection process. In fact some candidates who got lower marks in the computer aptitude test than the first respondent got higher position in the rank list by scoring higher marks in the written test and interview. What we notice in this case is that while inviting applications, method of selection was not prescribed. However, prior to the commencement of the selection process, method of selection was prescribed vide Ext.R5(b) wherein written test and interview including computer aptitude test were prescribed. Consistent with the norms prescribed in Ext.R5(b), written test was conducted and the 1st respondent who contested the selection also does not want to challenge the written test though Ext.P1 notification inviting application did not provide for written test. In fact, she has participated in the whole selection process. All what she challenges is the assignment of 10 marks for computer aptitude test. We are of the view that the selection is not vitiated by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety because norms were prescribed much before the commencement of the selection process vide Ext.R5(b). In fact, selections were also made strictly in accordance with Ext.R5(b) norms which among other things provided 10 marks for computer aptitude test. The first respondent, in our view, after participating in the written examination and interview and after obtained 4 marks out of 10 in the computer aptitude test cannot challenge the selection process merely because she got low rank compared to some other candidates.

6. Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice circular No. 119/DPI/2007/LSGD date 13.1.2007 and G.O.(MS No. 168/2007/LSGD dated 25.6.2007 issued by the Government wherein all the employees in Government service including those in Municipal Common Service to which the first respondent belongs were given computer training by IMG Obviously and admittedly the first respondent who contested the selection is also trained in handling computer and in the computer aptitude test, she got 4 marks out of 10 which proves her capacity and familiarity in handling computers. We do not think that the first respondent is entitled to challenge the computer aptitude test because some other candidates got higher marks than her in the said test. In fact, it is common knowledge that in these days nobody can successfully run any office without minimum knowledge in computer operations. It is seen that out of 100 marks only 10 marks were provided for computer aptitude test and in our view, even without prescribing any norms, it is for the interview board to give weightage to those who are familiar with computer and computer applications. We are of the view that the decisions relied on including the decision cited above have no application in this case because the Government have not changed the method of appointment after commencement of the selection process. What we notice is that selection norms were prescribed after inviting applications, but, before the commencement of the selection process which started with written examination. Besides prescribing norms for selection vide Ext.R5(b), in the interview letters forwarded to the candidates including the first respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P6, it is made clear that 10 marks out of 30 for interview will be for computer aptitude test. The first respondent after having participated in the interview and undergone the computer aptitude test has challenged the computer aptitude test only because she got low rank compared to some others. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the first respondent that she was not given time to prepare for computer aptitude test on account of short notice for the test. For the reasons stated above, we uphold the selection and rank list prepared for appointment to the post of Women Protection Officers. Consequently, Writ Appeal is allowed vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by dismissing the Writ Petition.