IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 292 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Om Parkash …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, 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 order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no excessive allocation of marks for the viva-voce. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mr. Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 AIR (SC) 487 and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR (SC) 454. It has further been found that the marks in interview have been awarded in an arbitrary manner. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the allegation are general in nature and no beneficiary of such marks has been impleaded as party and, therefore, the contention has been rejected. The other contention that the percentage of reservation was more than 50% has also been rejected in view of the stand of the respondent that the posts advertised included the back-log posts meant for reserved category which were to be filled up as per government instructions dated 06.11.2001 and those averments made in the written statement were not controverted. The learned Single Judge also rejected the plea raised by the LPA No. 292 of 2011 (O&M) appellant that no criterion for selection was made public. It has been held that the selection was made primarily on the basis of interview and the marks allocated for the academic qualification prescribed as the essential qualification. The appellant himself appear in the interview on 01.07.2002 and the criterion was laid down in the year 2001. Having participated in the interview, it was not open to the appellant to challenge the selection. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length who has firstly repeated the argument raised before the learned Single Judge and then raised a new argument that the selected candidate did not fulfill the essential educational qualification. We find that firstly, it is not open to the appellant to raise a new argument in the first Appeal especially when no such argument was even pleaded before the learned Single Judge. There is no private respondent either before us or before the learned Single Judge, who did not possess the essential educational qualifications. We have repeatedly asked learned counsel to disclose the names of unqualified persons but in vain. Even otherwise, it is well-settled that once the appellant has participated in the selection process, he cannot turn around and start claiming one lacuna or the other in the selection process. For the aforesaid provisions, we draw support from the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995(3) SCC 486. 3. The appeal is a frivolous piece of litigation and does not deserve admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 17, 2011 JUDGE 2 LPA No. 292 of 2011 (O&M) Rajan 3