C.W.P. No. 15232 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15232 of 2009 Date of Decision 29.07.2010 Geeta Rani -----Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) through its Registrar, Sector 17, Chandigarh & others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner was aspirant for appointment on the post of Female Security Guard in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for brevity 'PGI'). She had applied and participated in the selection. There was some controversy with regard to criteria for judging the physical standard for the female candidate. On the representation made by the female candidates, a different criteria than the one applicable to male candidates was observed and on the basis of that criteria, all the candidates were allowed to participate. According to the change in the physical test, the female candidates were given relaxation in the physical standard and were also awarded grace marks. The Petitioner had appeared in the viva-voce test, yet she did not qualify. C.W.P. No. 15232 of 2009 -2- It follows that the respondents selected the Female Security Guards as per criteria adopted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a view different than the one taken by the Tribunal. There is no challenge to the criteria adopted and in the controversy with regard to physical standard completely lost its significance as the respondents had accepted the demand of relaxation for female candidates as compared to male counter parts. Thereafter, petitioner has participated in the selection process voluntarily without demur. There is complete acquiescence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the principle in the nature of estoppel as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486, would be attracted, which has been followed and applied in many latest judgments including Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is liable to fail. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 29, 2010 JUDGE Atul