In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 11178 of 1989 Date of Decision: April 23, 2009 Surinder Pal Sharma …Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of selection of respondent Nos. 8 to 16 for the post of Executive Officer Class-I and for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Executive Officer Class-I. The petitioner after doing his Graduation, Post-graduation and LL.B. got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and started practising as such at Civil Courts, Nabha since 26.7.1980. On 13.8.1985, he was appointed as a Legal Advisor to C.W.P. No. 11178 of 1989 the Municipal Committee, Nabha. In 1987, Joint Director, Local Government Department, Punjab-respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement for filling up 9 posts of Executive Officer Class-I for various Municipalities in the State of Punjab (P-6). The petitioner being eligible, applied and participated in the selection process for appointment to the said post. On 10.7.1989, the petitioner came to know about declaration of result and the appointments to the post of Executive Officer Class-I (P-12). The name of the petitioner did not figure in the final select list. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 8 to 16 on the strength that his superior claim has not been considered by the Selection Committee. It is claimed that there was no legal expert in the Selection Committee and no nomination of Departmental Selection Committee by the concerned Administrative Secretary of the Government of Punjab was made. It is alleged that the Chairman of the so-called Departmental Selection Committee never participated in the interview Board. The allegations of nepotism, favouritism and pick and choose have also been levelled. In the written statement filed on behalf of private respondent Nos. 8 to 12 preliminary objections have been raised asserting that the writ petition does not disclose any violation of legal infirmity in the selection process. They have also raised the plea of estoppel by submitting in para 5 and 6 on merits that once the petitioner has participated in the selection process by appearing before the Selection Committee in the interview, the petitioner cannot question the validity of the constitution of Selection Committee for the purposes of computing the merit of candidates. 2 C.W.P. No. 11178 of 1989 No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner in support of the petition. Having heard learned State counsel and perusing the paper book with her able assistance, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled that once the petitioner has participated in the selection process then he looses the right to question the same on the ground of adopting irrational criterion. The principle in the nature of estoppel would be attracted in such a case. In a number of cases where the candidate has participated in the selection process for induction in service, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that such a candidate cannot be permitted to question the selection process when he has remained unsuccessful. The principles laid down in those cases would fully apply to the facts of the present case. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntla Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127; Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486; Om Parkash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, (1996) Suppl. SCC 285; Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, 2008 (2) SCT 659; and Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 (1) SCT 26. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) April 23, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3