IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 18416 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2009 MOHD ASLAM & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. ML Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.6. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in regard to petitioners No.1 and 2, the petition has been rendered infructuous in so much as the said petitioners have been given appointment. In regard to petitioner No.3, the claim survives as appointment letter has not been given. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed from the affidavit of Shri Jagjit Singh Sidhu, Deputy Director (SA), office of Civil Writ Petition No. 18416 of 2007 2 Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, sworn on 15.7.2009, that petitioner No.3, who belonged to Female Ex-servicemen (Dependent) Backward Class category, had secured merit/marks 111.49 while the last selected candidate in the said category had secured merit/marks 113.92 marks. In fact, it has been pointed out on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 that no person lower in merit as compared to petitioner No.3 has been selected in the aforesaid category. Replication has not been filed to controvert this specific fact asserted on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere in regard to petitioner No.3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as infructuous in regard to petitioners No.1 and 2, their claim having been allowed and no cause of action surviving in regard to their claim. In regard to petitioner No.3, the petition is dismissed. August 4, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?