In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 1658 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 09, 2011 Raman Kumar ---Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the appellant *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.2010 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the appellant having participated in the selection process cannot challenge the selection on the ground that it has not been held in accordance with the norms or the Rules. 2. Notice of motion. 3. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Two copies of the paper book have been handed over to him in the Court. 4. The basic rationale for the aforesaid principle is that once the appellant himself has been subjected to the same norms and has failed, he cannot turn around and say that incorrect norms were adopted. It takes care of the grievance with regard to the age limit of 35 years which was alleged to be contrary to the instructions issued by the State of Punjab (Annexure P-1). The L.P.A. No. 1658 of 2011 -2- aforesaid principle has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486. 5. The other issue raised by Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the appellant is that no physical test was conducted. The averments in that regard have been made in para 4 of the petition. In the corresponding para 4 of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, it has been specifically pleaded that before holding the interview, the candidates were required to undergo physical test and it is incorrect that no physical test was undertaken . It has also been averred that 88 candidates (wrongly typed as 38 candidates) appeared in the physical test and thereafter, they were called for interview, which was conducted by a Committee consisting of President and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council. The interview was held on the basis of the criteria and the marks were accordingly allocated for basic qualification, higher qualification and interview. These facts have not been controverted by filing any replication. It has however been claimed that some applications were filed for conducting the physical test by some independent agency. 6. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law or fact by concluding that the appellant having participated in the selection process cannot now dispute that the physical test was not conducted. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 09, 2011 PARAMJIT