LPA No. 188 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 188 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 Madan Lal …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the view taken by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 06.05.2010, holding that prescription of 60% marks for viva voce out of 100, cannot be regarded as excessive after allocating 40% marks to the personal achievements. The learned Single Judge has repelled the arguments based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Surpreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehrawardi 1981 (1) SCC 722 and opined that it has no application to the case in hand because that case dealt with admission to professional course and the marks allocated for interview were considered vis-a-vis the written LPA No. 188 of 2011 -2- examination. In the case in hand, there is no written examination at the first place. It is selection based on virtually viva voce alone, although some components of the marks have been earmarked for personal achievements, experience and educational qualification. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. It has not been denied that the appellant was apprised of the criteria of 40% and 60% of marks before he took his chance. Apart from the fact that there is no inherent illegality in allocation of 60% marks for viva voce we are further of the view that the appellant is otherwise estopped from making a grievance because he himself participated in the selection process with his eyes wide opened. The principle in the nature of estoppel would be attracted and he cannot be heard making a complaint with regard to criteria adopted. In somewhat similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined in the case of Madan Lal v. Jammu & Kashmir and others (1995) 3 SCC 486 that after taking a chance and appearing in the selection process, a candidate cannot turn around challenging the criteria arguing that it suffered from some illegality. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) March 25, 2011 JUDGE Atul