Letter Patent Appeal No. 352 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Letter Patent Appeal No. 352 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Vakil son of Shri Ali Ram, ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh Present: Mr. Anil Rathi, Advocate with Mr. Navdeep Monga, 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 Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.4.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the screening test held for appointment to the post of Gram Sewaks in order to stream line the selection and appointment process could not be regarded as illegal. 2. It has come on the record that against 415 posts of Gram Sewaks, 68000 candidates had applied and after the screening test, 2411 candidates were short listed and then the selection process was carried out. Further such a screening test has been subject matter of consideration in a number of cases to which reference has been made by the learned Single Judge particularly, to the view of a Division Bench in the case of Rajesh Sharma and another v. Haryana Public Service Commission, reported as 1999(1) RSJ 728. Once the screening test has been upheld, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant would be against a wall of authorities. It is thus, obvious such an argument could not be entertained. Moreover, learned Single Judge found that a principle in the nature Letter Patent Appeal No. 352 of 2011(O&M) 2 of estoppel would operate against the appellant because he had appeared in test. After participating and failing in the selection process, the appellant has lost the right to challenge the selection itself. The appellant is in fact participant of the screening test and in such a situation, it would not be opened to him to raise any objection to the selection process which included screening test. Therefore, principle of estoppel would apply as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case reported as Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the opinion of the Single Judge is unassailable and does not call for any interference. The appellant firstly appeared in the screening test without any protest and then after qualifying the screening test, participated in the selection process and failed. Learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated as well as law on the issue. The appeal is wholly without any merit and does not merit admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE May 20, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH) nk JUDGE