JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above captioned petitions and similar reliefs have been claimed, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. 2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for the reliefs, which are similar, as such, relief prayed for in CWP No.8907 of 2022 is reproduced herein below:- “a. That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of direction may kindly be issued quashing the impugned Standing Order dated 02.01.2017(Annexure P-2) to the extent whereby the minimum qualifying marks percentage for written test has been raised from 50% to 605 vide clause 6(g) and further to the extent whereby minimum qualifying percentage marks to clear the B-1 test has been rasied to 60% instead of 50% being in utter violation to the provision to the Punjab Police Rules which are having the Statutory force; b. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to sponsor the name of the petitioners for further selection process by treating them as if they have attained minimum pass marks in the written test.” 3. For having bird’s eye view, facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties to the lis, are that petitioners are serving in Police Department as Constables. Next promotional post from the post of Constable is that of Head Constable. The procedure, which is in vogue in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007 read with Punjab Police Rules as amended from time to time by Government of Himachal Pradesh, as are applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, for promotion to the post of Head constable is that eligible candidates are required to undergo B-1 test and candidates, who successfully clear B-1 test, are then entered into a register, maintained by the Department and on the basis of seniority intra the selected Constables, they are sent for Lower School Course. The candidates, who are successful in B-1 test and Lower School Course, are promoted to the post of Head Constable as per seniority subject to availability of posts. 4. The candidates, who are successful in B-1 test and Lower School Course, are promoted to the post of Head Constable as per seniority subject to availability of posts. 4. Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of power vested in him under Section 143 of the H.P. Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules as amended by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. Home (A)B(2)- 4/90-II, Part dated 13.06.2008, issued Standing Order dated 02.01.2017 to regulate the B-I test. Besides, prescribing the composition of the Departmental Committees for selection to be made from amongst Constables for admission to list B from which Constables were be deputed to undergo promotional course ( Lower School Course), procedure for holding B-1 test also came to be prescribed in the aforesaid Standing Order. As per aforesaid Standing Order, B-1 test is meant to select the Constables to undergo the promotional course i.e. Lower School Course to enable them to earn promotion to the post of Head Constables. As per Clause -2 of Standing Order, B-1 test is required to be held in the month of August every year generally, but the Director General of Police shall have discretion to hold the test once or more than once in a year in case of exigencies keeping in view the vacancy position. 5. Clause 5 of Standing Order provides for eligibility. Constable after his having completed five years service from the date of appointment in the cadre of Constable is entitled to participate in B- 1 test. In case, test is not held in the month of August, all the candidates, who become eligible subsequently, shall also be eligible to appear in the said test. Those candidates, who obtain first position in the Recruits Basic Training course, will be eligible to appear in B-1 test after completing three years service. Similarly, deputationists and personnel serving outside the district/unit shall also be eligible for consideration, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. If the scheme of Standing Order is read in its entirety, it provides that Constable desirous of getting promotion to the post of constable is firstly required to undergo written test. The minimum qualifying marks percentage for the written test will be 60% for both General and SC/ST category Candidates i.e. 90 marks out of 150 marks. If the scheme of Standing Order is read in its entirety, it provides that Constable desirous of getting promotion to the post of constable is firstly required to undergo written test. The minimum qualifying marks percentage for the written test will be 60% for both General and SC/ST category Candidates i.e. 90 marks out of 150 marks. Once candidate clears written test, he shall be called for outdoor test by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted as per provision contained in para-3 of the Standing Order. The maximum marks for outdoor events are assigned as 40% and the minimum qualifying marks percentage for the outdoor test will be 60% i.e. 24 marks out of 40. Once candidate clears outdoor test, he shall be called for personal interview, which will carry 10 marks. Besides above, Selection Committee shall also peruse record of punishment, if any, awarded to the candidate as well as his ACRs. Total marks for B-1 test will be 200 and minimum qualifying percentage of marks to clear B-1 test will be 60% i.e. 120 marks out of maximum 200 marks for the test. During the year 2017, pursuant to aforesaid Standing order, total 3509 candidates were called for indoor B-1 test, but total 2709 candidates had appeared in said B-1 test, out of 2709, 984 candidates qualified and 1725 candidates failed including the petitioners. 6. Though, petitioners, had participated in written examination, but since they failed to get minimum marks, they were not further called for outdoor test, whereas other persons, who had qualified all tests i.e. written test, outdoor and interview and had procured minimum qualifying marks, were sent for Lower School Course. Petitioners herein kept mum for more than five years and suddenly thereafter, vide representation dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) made to Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, prayed that they be also sent for Lower School Course by treating the merit of the undersigned as if they had obtained the minimum pass marks in the outdoor test. In afore representation, petitioners claimed that some of the candidates, who had not qualified written test have been also sent for Lower School Course and as such, they also deserve to be given similar treatment. 7. In afore representation, petitioners claimed that some of the candidates, who had not qualified written test have been also sent for Lower School Course and as such, they also deserve to be given similar treatment. 7. Though, petitioners herein have claimed that their representations were not decided and as such, they are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, but careful perusal of order dated 27.03.2023 p assed by Director General of police, placed on record by the respondents alongwith the reply ( Annexure R-10), reveals that afore authority after having considered the representations of the petitioners rejected the same on the ground that since they had not qualified the written test, there was no occasion, if any, for the department to permit them to participate in outdoor test. Besides above, it also came to be observed in afore order that entire process has been completed as per the provision contained in Punjab Police Rules as well as Standing Order, coupled with the fact that petitioners have not procured minimum qualifying percentage /marks to clear B-1 test, their prayer cannot be accepted. 8. Besides above, petitioners by way of rejoinder have placed on record copy of office order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure A-2 available at page No.276 of the paper book), perusal whereof reveals that afore order came to be passed on the joint representation dated Nil made by one of the petitioner, namely Roshan Lal alongwith 158 officials, but same also came to be rejected on the ground that petitioners have failed to qualify the written test. 9. The grouse of the petitioners is that since vide Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, process was initiated to fill up 234 vacancies, there was no occasion, if any, for the department to fill up subsequent vacancies, if any, occurred after the test was conducted in the year 2017 that too on the basis of merit list prepared on the basis of examination conducted in the year, 2017. Since grouse of the petitioners as has been taken note hereinabove, never came to be redressed by the respondents, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 10. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. Since grouse of the petitioners as has been taken note hereinabove, never came to be redressed by the respondents, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 10. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that though petitioners herein had cleared written examination by obtaining minimum marks as provided under Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, but yet they were not permitted to participate in outdoor test. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even as per Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, B-1 test is/was to be conducted in the month of August every year, meaning thereby vacancy, if any, arising in particular year is/ was to be filled up on the basis of test to be conducted in that relevant year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the test conducted in the year 2017, vacancies available in that year could have been filled up and the vacancies which became available in subsequent years could not have been filled up on the basis of examination of 2017. He submitted that on account of aforesaid decision, petitioners who, despite being eligible, were illegally prohibited from participating in the outdoor test conducted in the year 2017 have consequently been further debarred from claiming promotion qua the vacancies, which occurred in subsequent years. He further contended that, although the power to issue Standing Orders is conferred under Section 143 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007, the scope of such power is circumscribed and can only be exercised for the purpose carrying out the performance of the Act. While referring to aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Standing Order shall be subject to rules and regulations amended under Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007. He submitted that every Standing Order issued by Director General of Police must be in consonance with the Punjab Police Rules. He submitted that Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, whereby minimum qualifying marks/percentage for the written test has been raised to 60% as was provided in the Punjab Police Rules is not sustainable. He submitted that as per Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, minimum qualifying marks individually in written and parade test shall be 50%. He submitted that Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, whereby minimum qualifying marks/percentage for the written test has been raised to 60% as was provided in the Punjab Police Rules is not sustainable. He submitted that as per Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, minimum qualifying marks individually in written and parade test shall be 50%. Only those Constables, who have obtained 50% marks both in written test and parade separately, shall be interviewed by the Board and marks for the interview shall be 10. He submitted that since petitioners herein had obtained 50% marks in the written test in terms of Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, they ought to have been permitted to participate in outdoor test. He submitted that number of persons, who had not qualified the written test, were not only permitted to participate in outdoor test, but despite their having failed in outdoor test, they were declared successful. 11. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while refuting the claim of the petitioners, vehemently argued that present petitions deserve outright dismissal on account of concealment of facts by the petitioner. He submitted that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. He contended that Standing Order dated 02.01.2017 has been issued under Section 143 of Himachal Pradesh Police Act, whereby minimum qualifying marks under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules have been enhanced. He submitted that B-1 test is governed as per the provisions contained in Punjab Police Rules 13.7 as amended by HP amendment Rules 2008 notified vide H.P. Government Notification dated 13.06.2008, which provides that B-1 test shall be regulated by a Standing Order issued by Director General of Police on 02.01.2017 as well as amendment dated 01.08.2017 in para 3(b) of the Standing Order. He submitted that department had given wide publicity qua framing of Standing Order dated 02.01.2017 and its amendment dated 01.08.2017, but despite same being in public domain, no challenge was laid to the same by the petitioners, rather they pursuant to the same participated in the selection process and failed. He submitted that since petitioners after their having participated in the selection process have approached this Court, petitions deserve outright dismissal. He further submitted that otherwise issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court on two occasions. He submitted that since petitioners after their having participated in the selection process have approached this Court, petitions deserve outright dismissal. He further submitted that otherwise issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court on two occasions. He submitted that Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.158 of 2014, titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters had already held that Constable after his having cleared B-1 is not required to undergo fresh test, rather he after his having cleared afore test shall be eligible to be considered for further promotion to the post of Head Constable against available vacancy. He submitted that in afore judgment, it has been further held that there shall be no waiting panel prepared on the basis of B-1 test conducted pursuant to Standing Order, rather all the candidates, who cleared B-1 examination shall be promoted in subsequent years. 12. Learned Advocate General further invited attention of this Court to subsequent judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3141 of 2019, titled Constable Bhupinder Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters, wherein respondents came to be directed to send the qualified Constables as per their order of merit in the State Level Merit List of B-I test conducted in 2017 for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise in the rank of Head Constables. It also came to be ruled in afore judgment that respondents shall examine possibility and feasibility of holding B-I test every year and sending qualified candidates therein on the basis of their State level merit in the B-I List for Lower School Course by giving preference to the qualified candidates of previous years B-I Lists and after exhausting the B-I lists of previous years in succession i.e. without tinkering with or violating in any manner the findings and observations of this Court in the judgment, dated 08.01.2016, passed in LPA No. 158 of 2014 and connected matters. 13. Lastly, Mr. 13. Lastly, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.5 of 2022, titled Umadutt Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to state that persons alleged to be selected without their having cleared the examination had actually cleared written examination, but they are estopped from going to lower school course pursuant to order passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3146 of 2021, wherein afore Court after having noticed cutting and interpolations in the original marks and outdoor test , directed the respondents not to send petitioner in afore case for lower school course. However, subsequently Division Bench of this Court in the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, directed the respondents to sponsor the appellants for lower school course by treating their merit in B-1 test, if they have obtained minimum pass marks in the outdoor test. Lastly , learned Advocate General submitted that true it is that after year 2017, no B- 1 test could be conducted in terms of standing order dated 02.01.2017, but now after exhausting merit list prepared for B-1 test conducted in the year, 2017 every endeavour shall be made to conduct B-1 test once in a year. He further submitted that though respondents stand from day one before Court, which had an occasion to deal issue at hand in past, as detailed hereinabove, was that B-1 test is to be conducted every year and persons who have passed B-1 test over and above available vacancies are required to undergo fresh test, but since Division Bench of this Court in the cases, detailed hereinabove, ordered that constable after his having cleared B-1 test is not required to undergo such test fresh, rather he or she shall be considered against the vacancies of subsequent year, if not available to find place in the merit list prepared for vacancies of relevant year, no B-1 test could be conducted in subsequent years. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases, as detailed hereinabove. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases, as detailed hereinabove. Pleadings adduced on record by the respondents in afore cases before the Division Bench of this Court, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that consistent stand of the respondent/ State was that in terms of Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, which has been laid challenge in the instant proceedings, B-1 test is/was to be conducted once in a year or in the event of administrative exigencies, Director General of Police could conduct such test twice in a year. Pursuant to aforesaid Standing Order though B-1 test came to be conducted for filling up 239 vacancies, but since 931 Constables cleared the same and candidates over and above 234 Constables were not being considered for promotion and they were advised to undergo fresh test, different writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, praying therein to issue direction to the respondents to send them for lower school course on the basis of B-1 list, however such prayer of them came to be rejected by learned Single Judge. 15. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, petitioners in afore cases filed LPA No. 158 of 2014 alongwith LPA Nos. 160, 163, 183 of 2014 and CWP No. No.7464 of 2014, which ultimately came to be decided on 08.01.2016. If the aforesaid judgment is red in its entirety, issue with regard to competenance of respondents to issue Standing Order also came to be raised. In afore cases, it also came to be claimed on behalf of the petitioners that qualification as prescribed under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules could not have been changed by way of Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2008. It also came to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that validity of list B-1 cannot be confined to one year and candidate after his/her being cleared B-1 test cannot be made to appear in test again for his promotion to Head constable. It also came to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that validity of list B-1 cannot be confined to one year and candidate after his/her being cleared B-1 test cannot be made to appear in test again for his promotion to Head constable. Division Bench of this Court, while setting aside the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, held that under Section 143 of the Act though the Director General of Police is authorized to issue Standing Orders to carry out the performance of the Act, however, such power is subject to the rules and regulations made under the Act. 16. Precisely, Division Bench of this Court held that Director General of Police in terms of Rule 13.7 has been vested with discretionary power to hold the test once or more in a year in case of exigencies, keeping in view the vacancy position. The other power which has been vested with Director General of Police to issue Standing Orders, but this is confined to the manner in which the test is to be regulated. It does not in any manner confer upon the Director General of Police any other power to add or subtract anything to this rule. Most importantly, in afore case Division Bench of this Court held that once the rules did not prescribe for a cap or time period of one year validity of the HPPR list, the same could not have been prescribed by issuing Standing Orders as the same is in conflict with the rules. Once the Constables have successfully competed B-1 test and were admittedly not sent for the Lower School Course only because of Clause 16 of the Standing Orders, there is no reason why they should be again subjected to undergo a test. 17. It would be profitable to take note of few paras of aforesaid judgment herein blow:- “17. It would be noticed that the amendment to rule 13.7 Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2008, was made by virtue of the powers conferred by the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007 whereby the Government had specifically deleted the requirement of appearing in B-1 test by those Constables, who were not sent to Lower School Course within one year of preparation of list. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was impermissible for the Director General of Police to have issued Standing Orders which infact were contrary not only to the letter but even the spirit and in utter violation and contravention of Rule 13.7 of the Rules. 18. In case, it would have been the intention of the Government to restrict the validity of list B-1 to only one year, we see no reason why the same could not have been provided in the rules themselves which as observed earlier came to be amended only in the year 2008. It cannot be disputed that the power to issue Standing Orders by the Director General of Police is subject to the rules and regulations and the H.P. Police Act, 2007. 19. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that the executive instructions/Standing Orders cannot over-ride or supersede the rules and, therefore, what was contemplated by the rules and consciously deleted vide amendment carried out in the year 2008 could not have been reintroduced by way of Standing Orders. 20. That apart, it would also be noticed that the Director General of Police in terms of Rule 13.7 has been vested with discretionary power to hold the test once or more in a year in case of exigencies keeping in view the vacancy position. The other power which has been vested with the Director General of Police is to issue Standing Orders, but this is confined to the manner in which the test is to be regulated. It does not in any manner confer upon the Director General of Police any other power to add or subtract anything to this rule. Even, under Section 143 of the Act though the Director General of Police is authorized to issue Standing Orders to carry out the performance of the Act, however, even this power is subject to the rules and regulations made under the Act. 21. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that once the rules did not prescribe for a cap or time period of one year validity of the HPPR list, the same could not have been prescribed by issuing Standing Orders as the same is in conflict with the rules. 22. Even otherwise, the ‘test’ in normal parlance would mean a procedure intended to establish a quality, performance or reliability of something. However, the definition of ‘test’ in legal parlance could be slightly different. 22. Even otherwise, the ‘test’ in normal parlance would mean a procedure intended to establish a quality, performance or reliability of something. However, the definition of ‘test’ in legal parlance could be slightly different. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word ‘test’ as under:- “1. A set of questions, exercises, or practical activities that measure either what someone knows or what someone or something is like or can do. 2. A medical examination on part of one’s body, usu. administered for diagnostic reasons. 3. A procedure designed to discover whether equipment or a product works correctly, or else to discover more about it. 4. A difficult situation in which a person’s or thing’s qualities are revealed.” 23. Once the Constables have successfully competed B-1 test and were admittedly not sent for the Lower School Course only because of Clause 16 of the Standing Orders, we see no reason why they should be subjected to again undergo a test. 24. It would be noticed that the only reason which persuaded and prevailed upon the learned writ Court to dismiss the writ petitions was that it treated the list B-1 as a select panel and concluded that the same was valid for one year. This was not the correct legal position as the select list is the list which is normally prepared by the Selection Committee out of the candidates, who are considered fit for appointment in order of their merit. Whereas, B-1 enlisted candidates are those successful candidates, who have qualified the B-1 test and would be required to be sent to Lower School Course. It is only after successful passing of this Course that they would be entitled to be considered for promotion as Head Constables. The mere passing of the B-1 test in itself does not result in promotion and, therefore, by any stretch of imagination can be considered to be a select panel. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in these appeals and writ petition. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned writ Court is ordered to be set aside and resultantly the writ petitions as filed by the writ petitioners are allowed as prayed for”. 18. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in these appeals and writ petition. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned writ Court is ordered to be set aside and resultantly the writ petitions as filed by the writ petitioners are allowed as prayed for”. 18. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue again came to be adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 04.08.2020 passed in CWPOA No.3141 of 2019, titled Constable Bhupinder Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters, wherein issue with regard competenance of the respondents to issue Standing Order in terms of Section 143 of the Act as well as their power to amend the same in accordance with law also came to be considered. However, Division Bench of this Court in afore judgment categorically held that it is Standing Order issued by the respondents, which governs the procedure for holding the B-I test and it is open for the respondents to amend the same in accordance with law. Division Bench of this Court categorically held that petitioners have not pointed out any illegality in the amendment of Standing Order No. 11/2016 and as such, the amendment was not in conflict with the Statute or the Rules. 19. Most importantly, in afore judgment, Division Bench of this Court having taken note of various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Union of India and others Vs. C. Girija and others and connected, (2019) 15 SCC 633, held that when a candidate appears in the examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, his challenge to the selection process is precluded. In nutshell, Division Bench of this Court held that question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate had appeared and participated because he or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was lacuna therein merely because his or her result was not palatable. In afore judgment, it specifically came to be ruled that petitioners No.1 to 12, who like petitioners had also participated in B-1 test cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the test was required to be held at the same time and date in different venues/districts. In afore judgment, it specifically came to be ruled that petitioners No.1 to 12, who like petitioners had also participated in B-1 test cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the test was required to be held at the same time and date in different venues/districts. It would be apt to take note of certain paras of aforesaid judgment herein below:- “ 4(iv) Observations 4(iv)(a) It is admitted position that 2017 was the first time that B-I test was being held online by the respondents. Effort made by the respondent department for holding B-I test 2017 at same time and date on all venues/districts is visible from the record of the case. Scheduling of the test on 16.7.2017 at same time and date for all the districts is not in dispute. There is no reason to disbelieve the respondents that despite their best efforts, the server developed technical snags forcing them to postpone the test. It is understandable that fearing repetition of technical glitches in a test being held online for the first time where around 3500 candidates were to log in at the same time and date, the respondents would tread in cautiously and would re-examine the technical aspects of the matter in consultation with its software developer, Information and Technology Department and other technical experts. In such circumstances, decision to hold the online test over a period of days at one centre equipped with requisite facilities and for facilitating this decision carrying out required amendment in the Standing Order no. 11/2016, cannot be faulted. Power to issue Standing Orders is contained in section 143 of HP Police Act 2007, which reads as under:- “…143. Power to issue Standing Orders. (1) The Director-General of Police may, subject to the rules and the regulations made under this Act, issue Standing Orders to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) Subject to sub-section (1), the Inspector- General, the Deputy Inspector-General, the District Superintendent of Police and Commandant of a Battalion may, with the previous approval of the authority to whom they are directly subordinate and subject to the rules and regulations made under this Act, issue standing instructions within their respective jurisdiction to carry out the purposes of this Act.” It is the Standing Order issued by the respondents which governs the procedure for holding the B-I test. It is open for the respondents to amend the same in accordance with law. Petitioners have not pointed out any illegality in amendment of the Standing Order No. 11/2016. The amendment was not in conflict with the Statute or the Rules. 4(iv)(b) It has also not been demonstrated as to how the holding of B-I test w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017 caused prejudice to the petitioners. All factual assertions of the petitioners viz. advantageous position of candidates who appeared in the test on later dates, overlapping of questions, a specific instance of some candidates of Kangra district allegedly allowed to re-take the 2nd paper, have all been convincingly, effectively refuted by the respondents with justifiable reasons and explanations. There is no apparent reason to doubt the stand of the respondents that the data was released directly from the server of Department of Information and Technology. No offline services were created in the interest of maintaining integrity. Question bank of 10,000 questions was created. Logic was applied in the system to ensure that no two candidates got the same question. Only those candidates were allowed to take the re-test whose tests could not be conducted due to technical errors which could not be removed within given time by the technical committee. Provision for holding of re-test in such circumstances was brought to the notice of all the candidates during briefing held before the test. Allegation regarding some candidates from Kangra District securing more marks in 2nd paper only on account of having appeared in the re-test was denied giving statistics. 4(iv)(c) Though the petitioners have tried to find fault with holding of B-I test at APG University over a period of days w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017 as well as in respect of modalities thereof, which have been noticed and deliberated above, however the fact also remains that the petitioner no. 1-12 appeared in this very B-I test under the terms and conditions of the Standing Order dated 2.1.2017 as amended on 1.8.2017 without raising any demur or protest. Having participated in the test, these petitioners cannot be heard to complain that the test should have been held on same time and date in different avenues/districts instead of holding at one centre over a period of days and further that the terms and conditions for holding the test were not proper. Having participated in the test, these petitioners cannot be heard to complain that the test should have been held on same time and date in different avenues/districts instead of holding at one centre over a period of days and further that the terms and conditions for holding the test were not proper. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to (2019) 15 SCC 633 , titled Union of India and others Vs. C. Girija and others and connected matters , wherein following previous judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue were noticed viz. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 357 ; Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127 ; Union of India Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; Munindra Kumar Vs. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 ; Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724 ; Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 ; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 ; Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 ; Marripatti Nagaraja Vs. State of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 ; Dhananjay Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 ; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines (2009) 5 SCC 515 ; Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150 ; Ramesh Chandra Shah Vs. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309 ; State (UT of Chandigarh) Vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 ; Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493 and Madras Institute of Development Studies Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016) 1 SCC 454 . The broader principles which can be extracted from the above judgments, are :- (i) when a candidate appears in the examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, his challenge to the selection process is precluded; (ii) question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate had appeared and participated. The broader principles which can be extracted from the above judgments, are :- (i) when a candidate appears in the examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, his challenge to the selection process is precluded; (ii) question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate had appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was lacuna therein merely because his or hers result was not palatable; (iii) those who consciously take part in the selection process cannot thereafter turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome; conduct of such persons disentitle them from questioning the selection process; (iv) after participating in the selection process, challenge to the same after declaration of result cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In view of the above well settled legal position, petitioner Nos. 1 to 12 having participated in B-I test (2017) held at one Centre over a period of days and after remaining unsuccessful in the test cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the test was required to be held at the same time and date in different venues/districts. Respondents have even otherwise explained the reasons and justifications for amending SO No. 11/2016 enabling them to hold the test at one venue over a period of days. Amendment has not been shown to be suffering from any illegality. The allegations of some unfair methods in the selection process have been effectively and convincingly refuted by the respondents. Petitioners No. 13 and 14 were admittedly neither eligible nor participated in the B-I test (2017), therefore, they otherwise have no locus-standi to join the issues raised by petitioners No. 1 to 12. The net result of the above discussion is that all the contentions raised by the petitioners are without any force and are accordingly rejected. Conclusion :- 5. The sum total of above discussion is that :- 5(i) CWPOA No. 3141 of 2019 is allowed in terms of relief No. 4 of its prayer clause. Respondents are directed to send qualified Constables as per their order of merit in the State Level Merit List of B-I test (2017) for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise in the rank of Head Constables. Respondents are directed to send qualified Constables as per their order of merit in the State Level Merit List of B-I test (2017) for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise in the rank of Head Constables. 5(ii) CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020 is dismissed. However, considering a grievance common to all the petitioners with respect to non holding of B-I test by the respondents for years together thereby denying the eligible Constables right of consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constables (raised by way of CMP No. 1660 of 2020 instituted by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the petition during ongoing hearing of the case), we direct the respondents to examine in accordance with applicable Act, Rules and Regulations, the possibility and feasibility of holding B-I test every year and sending qualified candidates therein on the basis of their State level merit in the B-I List for Lower School Course by giving preference to the qualified candidates of previous years B-I Lists and after exhausting the B-I lists of previous years in succession i.e. without tinkering with or violating in any manner the findings and observations of this Court in the judgment, dated 08.01.2016, passed in LPA No. 158 of 2014 and connected matters.” 20. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners while making this Court peruse judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.158 of 2014 alongwith connected matters, view taken therein subsequently came to be reiterated in judgment dated 04.08.2020, attempted to argue that in no eventuality Director General of Police could have issued Standing Order containing therein provisions contrary to the Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules. He further submitted that though in terms of Section 143 of the Act Director General of Police is authorized to issue Standing Order to carry out the performance of the Act, but certainly he could not have changed the eligibility criteria, which otherwise stood prescribed under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules. He further submitted that though in terms of Section 143 of the Act Director General of Police is authorized to issue Standing Order to carry out the performance of the Act, but certainly he could not have changed the eligibility criteria, which otherwise stood prescribed under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules. Though, having perused aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.158 of 2014, this Court finds force in aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, but as has been observed hereinabove that subsequently Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 04.08.2020 passed in Bhupinder Kumar’s case(supra) held that it is open for the respondents to amend the procedure for holding B-1 test and amendment carried out in the same is not in conflict with the Statute or the Rules. 21. Even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that amendment carried out in the Standing Order, thereby changing the eligibility criteria, is not in consonance with law, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioners, who admittedly had definite knowledge with regard to change in selection criteria by way of amendment, but yet they participated in the selection process. It is only after their having failed in the examination, they approached this Court in the instant proceeding that too after five years of declaration of result. 22. Though, reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that petitioners herein were unable to obtain minimum qualifying marks in written test, but even if it is presumed that minimum qualifying marks obtained by the petitioners were to be considered on the basis of marks provided in the eligibility criteria under Clause 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules, no relief at this stage can be granted to the petitioners for the reason that 931 persons after their having cleared B-1 in the year, 2017 are required to be given promotion against available vacancies of Head Constables in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court. Since judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court have already attained finality, rather pursuant to the same petitioners therein have been granted benefit of promotion, there appears to be no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 23. Since judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court have already attained finality, rather pursuant to the same petitioners therein have been granted benefit of promotion, there appears to be no occasion for this Court to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 23. Similarly, this Court with a view to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioners that some of the unqualified persons have been given benefit of promotion called for the record, but perusal whereof nowhere suggest illegality, if any, committed by the respondents. Person namely Umadutt Sharma and others as pointed out by the petitioners also participated in the written test of 2017, they after their having cleared written examination also participated in the outdoor test. Though, afore persons had cleared outdoor test successfully, but subsequently they were declared failed on the ground that they had been unsuccessful in outdoor test. In the aforesaid background, persons named hereinabove alongwith other persons approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4170 of 2020, which ultimately came to be decided on 17.12.2020(Annexure R-7). Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to sponsor the petitioners also for Lower School Course by treating their merit in B-1 test as if they have obtained minimum pass marks in the outdoor test. Subsequently, one more writ petition bearing CWP No. 3146 of 2021, titled Umadutt Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, came to be filed claiming therein parity with the petitioners in CWPOA No.4170 of 2020, who vide judgment dated 17.12.2020 were recommended to be sent for course notwithstanding the fact that they had also not passed the outdoor test. However, afore writ petition was rejected by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 27.10.2021 with the observation that Departmental Selection Committee constituted in terms of Standing Order No.11/16, shall adjudge the suitability of the candidates for outdoor test as Unit and shall not adopt the methodology which stood adopted by the Committee for District Solan. 24. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, an appeal bearing LPA No.5 of 2022 came to be filed before the Division Bench. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.01.2022 allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 24. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, an appeal bearing LPA No.5 of 2022 came to be filed before the Division Bench. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.01.2022 allowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge. In afore appeal direction came to be issued to the respondents to sponsor the appellants for lower school course by treating their merit in B-1 test, if they have obtained minimum pass marks in outdoor test. 25. No doubt, on account of the fact that after 2017 respondents have not conduced B-1 test and all the vacancies occurring in the subsequent years are being filled up on the basis of merit list prepared for B-1 examination conducted in the year 2017, petitioners herein are unable to participate in examination, which otherwise as per Standing Order is/was required to be conducted every year, but since it already stands decided by the Division Bench of this Court that constable after his/her having cleared B-1 test is not required to sit in test again, rather his candidature shall be considered for the vacancy of subsequent years, no fault, if any, can be said to have been committed by the respondents by offering appointments to 931 candidates, who had qualified the examination in the year 2017 at first instance. No doubt, serious prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners on account of the fact that no test has been held after 2017, but petitioners, who after their having participated in the test conducted in 2017 remained mum for good five years cannot be compensated in any terms at this stage, rather they shall have to try their luck again in examination otherwise undertaken to be conducted every year henceforth. 26. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are dismissed alongwith the pending applications if any. Interim order(s), if any, is also vacated.