CWP No. 16456 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.02.2011 1. CWP No. 16456 of 2008 Dharam Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15032 of 2010 Mukesh Nanda ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 16456 of 2008. Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 15032 of 2010. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab. Mr. Anand Chibber, Advocate, for respondent No.2 i.e. High Court of Punjab & Haryana Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate. Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 10 in CWP No. 15032 of 2010. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) Both these writ petitions have been filed by the unsuccessful candidates who had appeared in the recruitment to the CWP No. 16456 of 2008 [2] Punjab Superior Judicial Services examination held in the year 2008. They have challenged the vires of Rule 11 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules,2007. Rule 11 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 is in the following terms:- “ Test for direct appointment:- (1) The High Court shall, before making recommendations to the Governor, invite applications by advertisement and may require the applicants to give such particulars as it may prescribe and may further hold written examination test and viva- voce for appointment under Rule 7, in the following manner, namely:- i) Written test : 750 Marks and ii) Viva-Voce : 250 Marks.” The short contention advanced at the hearing is that the conduct of the written examination and viva-voce has been vested in a committee of five Judges constituted by the Chief Justice. According to the petitioners, it is the admitted position that the said Committee had not been authorized by the Full Court to conduct the examination and therefore, the selection process initiated in respect of the year 2008 and the result of the said process including the appointments are vitiated in law. In so far as the issue of vires is concerned, the provisions of Rule 11 quoted above, would not suggest any invalidity thereof, inasmuch as the power of making recommendations for appointments under Article 233 of the Constitution is vested in the High Court and the Rules merely reiterate the said position. Holding of written examination and viva-voce by the High Court are part of the recommendatory process under Rule 11 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules,2007. CWP No. 16456 of 2008 [3] Under Article 216 of the Constitution, the High Court consists of the Chief Justice of the Court and all other Judges. Though by virtue of Article 233, the power of making recommendations for appointments to the Superior Judicial Services is vested in the High Court, yet, in a situation where the numerical strength of Judges of a particular High Court is large, the judicially acceptable mode of exercising the functions vested by the Constitution in the High Court is through the Committees. The Chief Justice of the High Court constitutes such Committees and the decisions of the Committees, wherever required, are to be placed before the Full Court for ratification. In the present case, the proceedings of the Recruitment Committee were placed before the Full Court and it is only after the approval of the Full Court that the recommendations were made leading to consequential appointments. When the Full Court had ratified the decision of the Committee, the said decision is of the High Court, thereby, satisfying the constitutional mandate under Article 233 read with Rule 11 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules. Further, the petitioners cannot, at this stage, be permitted to raise the objections with regard to the selection criteria and the procedure adopted, having participated in the selection process and having not succeeded. The norms, criteria and standard of examination were well known to the petitioners. If they had any grouse against the same, they should have objected to the same at the appropriate stage. Being aware of the process, procedure and norms of selection and having participated in the selection, the petitioners are estopped at this stage to raise the objections sought to be raised CWP No. 16456 of 2008 [4] against the selection process. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. These are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 08.02.2011 'ravinder'