C.W.P No. 9597 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9597 of 2008 Date of decision : April 17, 2009 Suman, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in granting only one chance to candidates of Sonepat for clearing physical efficiency test. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in all international and national athletic meets, three chances are given in the disciplines of long jump, high jump and shortput and also that in the other centres where this recruitment drive was going on, three chances were given to the candidates. Counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to deny C.W.P No. 9597 of 2008 ::2:: that in Sonepat every candidate was given one chance. Thus, it is clear that a level field playing was provided. As regards the argument that in athletic competitions three chances are given, suffice it to say that in athletic competitions the purpose is to judge excellence, whereas in a physical efficiency test, the purpose is to see if a candidate can achieve the minimum target. Further, the fact that three chances were given in other centres would not necessarily mean that this was an accepted parameter. It is not disputed that in the advertisement or the guidelines, number of chances to be given was not mentioned. Thus, the net result, as noticed above, is that the parameter of the provision of a level playing field has been met. There is no warrant for the proposition of law that just because two more chances were not given, the selection procedure is vitiated. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 17, 2009. JUDGE `kk'