CWP No. 3420-CAT of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3420-CAT of 2010 Date of decision 25 .2.2010 Sandeep Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. RK Handa,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 9.10.2009 (P.13) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner. The Tribunal has found that in the selection for appointment to the post of 150 Constables, 17 posts were reserved for members of scheduled caste category and according to the record produced by the respondents the merit of the petitioner was at serial no. 34. After examining the original record, the Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner by concluding that the petition is devoid of the merit. Mr. R.K.Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted before us that the criterion of allocating 55 marks to written test, 10 marks to interview and further allocation of 5 marks for driving test are absolutely arbitrary. According to the learned counsel such a criterion is CWP No. 3420-CAT of 2010 2 violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution especially when the petitioner has qualified the written test and has been ignored only in the interview or driving test. Having heard the learned counsel, we are not able to persuade ourselves to accept his submissions because once the petitioner has participated in the selection process then he cannot turn around and argue that the criterion for selection was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The aforesaid principle is well settled and reliance in this regard may be placed on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486. The Tribunal has examined the original record of the respondent department and has found that against 17 posts reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes, the petitioner is at number 34 in the merit list. The Tribunal has taken the correct view and it could not have acted like an appellate forum sitting over the judgement of the Selection Committee. There is thus no merit in the petition and same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 25.2.2010 Judge okg