IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Suman. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing her writ petition. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioner was that selection made for the posts of Female Constables in Sonepat district was not proper as minimum three chances were not given to all the candidates for testing physical efficiency. 4. The petitioner participated in the selection process in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2007. The selection was districtwise but a candidate could apply only at one Selection Centre. The selection procedure mentioned in the advertisement LPA No.729 of 2009 was Physical Efficiency Test followed by Interview/Personality Test. The petitioner was not selected in the Physical Efficiency Test. She secured 14 marks and failed to qualify by one mark. Case of the petitioner was that in all other Selection Centres, three chances were given for the Physical Efficiency Test but at Sonepat only one chance was given. 5. The petition was contested by stating that uniform standard was applied at Sonepat Selection Centre and giving of three chances at different centres was a matter of policy adopted by the Selection Committees at those centres. In absence of any mandate for giving three chances, the Selection Committee at Sonepat had the option to adopt such suitable procedure as considered proper for testing physical efficiency. There was neither any allegation of malafide nor there was any illegality. 6. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that in the selection process, in which the petitioner participated, level playing field was provided and the petitioner had to be compared with other participants at that centre. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Only contention raised is that there was discrimination in criteria of three chances not having been adopted at Sonepat, which was adopted at other places. 8. We are unable to accept the contention. There is no legal requirement for adopting the criteria of three chances. The appellant was allowed to compete by adopting same norms which 2 LPA No.729 of 2009 were adopted for all the candidates at the Selection Centre at Sonepat. Plea of discrimination by comparing the appellant with procedure followed at other selection centres could not be accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two posts are still vacant and the petitioner ought to be given a fresh chance. 10. In absence of any illegality or irregularity in the selection process, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 18, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3