JUDGMENT KAMLESH SHARMA, ACTG. C.J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1.1.1998 passed by HP. Administrative Tribunal whereby his Original Application is dismissed on the ground that he does not have locus standi to challenge the screening test held for the selection to the post of District Public Relation Officer/Information Officer, Class-!!, having already participated in it. 2. The facts in brief are that H.R Public Service Commission by its advertisement No. 1/97 published on 1.5.1997 in The Tribune, invited applications for six posts of District Public Relation Officer/Information Officer Essential qualifications for the posts were as under:— (ii) Graduate of recognised University. (ii) Diploma or Degree in Journalism/Public Relations from a recognised University or Institution recognised by the H.P. Government. 3. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner, who is graduate and has diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication, applied for the post. 131 Candidates including the petitioner were provisionally admitted and were called for screening test to be held on 19.12.1997 at 11.00 a.m. at Shimla. It was stated in the admission letters sent to the candidates that the screening test will be objective type of one paper containing 100 questions concerning the course in Journalism/Public Relations. It is clear from the admission letter dated 1.12.1997 (Annexure P-2) received by the petitioner. Only 111 candidates appeared in the test. 4. According to the Respondent-H.R Public Service Commission, the question papers were distributed amongst the candidates after verbally ascertaining their options for the subjects i.e. Journalism or Public Relations. But according to the petitioner, he was given one typed paper with the heading Journalism and when after half an hour he and other candidates were told that they should write on the top of their answer-sheets the subject of the question paper supplied to them, he learnt for the first time that as a matter of fact two sets of question papers had been distributed to the examinees. The petitioner asked for the question paper of Public Relations but his request was not accepted and he was told to attempt the question paper of Journalism already supplied to him. The petitioner asked for the question paper of Public Relations but his request was not accepted and he was told to attempt the question paper of Journalism already supplied to him. In this background, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 22.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) to the Chairman of Respondent-H.R Public Service Commission that screening test was not conducted in accordance with the admission letter, as two sets of question papers were distributed amongst the candidates and requested for cancellation of the screening test. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed Original Application before the H.R Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the screening test but failed and his Original Application was dismissed on 1.1.1998 on the preliminary point of locus standi. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the principle that since the petitioner has participated in the screening test, he has no locus standi to challenge it, does not apply, as he did not know that two sets of question papers, one in the subject of Journalism and the other in the subject of Public Relations, would be given in the screening lest and he had learnt this fact after half an hour when the candidates were told that they were to write on the top of their answer-sheets the name of the subject for which they were given the question papers. According to the learned Counsel, from the statement contained in the admission letter that there will be one paper containing 100 questions concerning the course of diploma in Journalism/Public Relations, the petitioner had understood that there would be a common question paper for both these subjects. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner besides asking for the question paper of Public Relations and lodging protest in the examination hall had also filed his representation as well as Original Application before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal at the first available opportunity on 22.12.1997 as 21.12.1997 was Sunday. To substantiate his submission he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, (1996) 4 SCC 319. 6. To substantiate his submission he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, (1996) 4 SCC 319. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate-General appearing for the Respondent State and Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent H.P. Public Service Commission, have supported the impugned order of H.P. Administrative Tribunal. Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel has pointed out that the request of the petitioner for question paper in the subject of Public Relations after half an hour could not be accepted as the question paper of Journalism was given to him after orally ascertaining his option. According to the stand of the H.P Public Service Commission, the petitioner had asked for the question paper of Public Relations after half an hour when he realised that he would not be able to succeed in the paper of Journalism. The learned Counsel has shown us answer-sheets attempted by the petitioner to substantiate his submission that the petitioner had in fact attempted the question paper of Journalism. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that except the petitioner, none else out of 111 candidates has objected to the mode of holding screening test in the subject of Journalism and the other in the subject of Public Relations according to the options exercised by the candidates. Moreover, this mode is not adopted for the first time but has been in vogue from 1992. The learned Counsel has further urged that looking to one of the essential qualifications for. The post that Diploma or Degree in Journalism/Public Relations, there could not be common question paper in both the subjects of Journalism and Public Relations. Since the petitioner has Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communications, it can be presumed that he had opted for the question, paper of Journalism. The learned Counsel have further submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. He cannot object to the mode of screening test after participating in it. Iri support of their submissions, they have referred to the judgments of the SC in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043 and Madan Lai and others v. State of J. & K. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486. 7. He cannot object to the mode of screening test after participating in it. Iri support of their submissions, they have referred to the judgments of the SC in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043 and Madan Lai and others v. State of J. & K. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486. 7. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are unable to accept that the petitioner had for the first time come to know after half an hour from the tart of the examination that separate question papers in Journalism and Public Relations were given to the candidates, as he has not controverted the categorical assertion of Respondent H.P. Public Service Commission in its reply filed on the affidavit of Shri PC. Katoch, its Secretary by filing rejoinder that question papers of Journalism or Public Relations were distributed amongst the candidates after verbally ascertaining their options. It is also not his case that he had left the paper when he was refused the question paper of Public Relations in order to protest against the mode of giving question papers in the screening test. In fact he had attempted the entire paper of Journalism by availing full time. Most probably, within half an hour he had come to know that he would not be able to successfully attempt the question paper of Journalism, therefore, he asked for the question proper of Public Relations in the hope that he might be able to attempt the same successfully. In these circumstances, the principle of approbation and reprobation will apply to the present case and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the screening test after participating in it. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v Haryana State Electricity Board and others (supra) is on the facts of that case and does not apply to the present case. In that case learned Judges have come to the conclusion that the candidates could not have anticipated when they appeared for the interview that the Selection Committee would recommend candidates and the Board would make appointments far in excess of the advertised posts, therefore, the objection of locus standi on the ground that they had participated in the interview could not be raised. So far the present case is concerned, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043 and Madan Lai and others v. State of J. & K. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486, squarely applies, wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that after taking a chance to get themselves selected in the examination or oral interview, the candidates cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of selection was not fair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted because the selection had not gone in their favour. In the present case, though the petitioner had represented and approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal a day earlier to 23.12.1997, when the result of screening test was declared but the possibility cannot be ruled out that either on the basis of his self-assessment or he might have received the information that he had not qualified the screening test, he preferred to assail the screening test. Otherwise also, looking to the essential qualifications as well as the statement in the admission letter, there was no scope for any confusion that there would be separate question papers, one in the subject of Journalism and the other in the subject of Public Relations. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is rejected. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.