IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21921 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2010 Impinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide representations dated 04.10.2010, 03.11.2010 and 23.11.2010, placed on record as Annexures P-3 to P-5 respectively and take a decision so as to allow the petitioner to appear in the exam for PCS Executive Branch, 2009. 2. It has been contended that the petitioner applied for PCS Executive Branch. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as ineligible by the Punjab Public Service Commission in view of the fact that a wrong code had been filled by the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner filed representations on which, however, no decision has been taken causing manifest injustice. 3. It transpires that the respondents, vide a public notice, invited objections from persons such as the petitioner. The objections were to be filed on or before 31.08.2010. As per the admitted case of the petitioner, objections/representation was not filed before the date given by the respondents. 4. Since the petitioner did not file objections within the time stipulated, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were within their rights not to have entertained the objections/representations. Since a public notice was issued inviting objections before a particular date, the petitioner was required to adhere by the schedule given therein. In case persons like the petitioner are allowed to seek decision on representations, the selection process would not be concluded, ever. The petitioner was required to be vigilant, however, he remained dormant. 5. In view of the above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. Petition dismissed. 13.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 3.