C.W.P. No. 5287 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5287 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: 12.07.2011 Rajiv Kumar and others ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. RK Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suraj Singh Chohan, AAG, Punjab. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 13. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing of the selection of post of Sub Divisional Engineers made by official respondents in pursuance to the advertisement No.3 issued in this regard. The selection has been challenged mainly on the ground that written test has been ignored and the performance in the written test has not been taken into consideration. It is also been argued that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav etc. Vs. State of Haryana 1985 (2) SLJ 482, viva voce test should not exceed 12-1/2% and grant of 40 marks for Bachelor of Engineering was also not justified. Learned counsel for the State as well as private respondents by relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Swaran Lata Vs. Union of India and others 1979 (1) SLR 710, State of Punjab and C.W.P. No. 5287 of 1994 (2) others Vs. Manjit Singh and others (2003) 11 SCC 559, B.Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi Vs. Union of India and others (2008) 1 SCC 362 and of this Court in Gurpal Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Singla and others 1989 (2) SLR 50 submits that in case of short listing of the candidates, the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable and moreover the selection was made in the year 1994 and much time has passed. Learned counsel also submits that there is no justification in quashing the selection as the selected candidates are already in service for the last more than 16 years and it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the selection at this stage. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that it was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that in case of large number of applications, the Commission can hold a screening test or call the candidates having qualifications more than minimum prescribed and the petitioners were aware with regard to holding of a screening test and moreover they participated in the test held on 20.9.1993 and also appeared before the interview Board in November, 1993. The petitioners were aware with regard to allocation of 40 marks reserve for viva voce and 40 for Bachelor of Engineering. The petitioners have not challenged the criteria, which was mentioned in the advertisement, which in itself shows that they accepted the criteria mentioned in the advertisement and participated accordingly. Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on record. The judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case as the shortlisting was done, which is permissible and question of allocation of marks for interview was of no relevance. Moreover, the advertisement was made in the year 1993 and it was specifically mentioned in the C.W.P. No. 5287 of 1994 (3) advertisement that in case of receiving large number of applications, it was difficult to call all the candidates for interview and the Commission could call the candidates having qualifications more than minimum prescribed or screening test could be held. The petitioners participated in the selection process including viva voce and they did not challenge the criteria and subsequently selection has been challenged by stating that criteria was not good. This view has been supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AiR 1986 SC Page 1043, wherein it has been held that when the petitioners appeared in the examination without protest and were not successful filed a petition challenging the criteria and are not entitled for relief. Moreover, the selected candidates have joined their duties after selection and they are continuing since then and the petitioners might have been over aged upto now. There is no justification to go into the validity of selection at this stage. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. July 12, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No