C.W.P No. 18932 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 18932 of 2008 Date of decision : January 09, 2009 Yudhishthar & others ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) In this writ petition, the petitioners have claimed that even though the last date for submitting application forms was 21.8.2006 and they had not obtained the requisite academic qualifications till then yet since this Court has allowed CWP No.16214 of 2008 relating to this very selection and has held that the last date for the petitioners therein shall be 10.12.2008, therefore, even in this case the same principle should apply. It may be noticed that Civil Writ Petition No. 16214 of 2008 was decided on the basis of Navneet Kaur V State of Punjab and others reported as 2008 (4) SCT 192, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- C.W.P No. 18932 of 2008 ::2:: “It is evident that by the corrigendum the applications for 700 posts and 600 posts of Mathematics Master/Mistress were invited and the date was extended to 31.8.2006. Once the last date for submission of applications has been extended to 31.8.2006 it follows that the eligibility as per Clause 10 would automatically be considered as on 31.8.2006. The detailed marks card of the petitioner in respect of her B.Ed. Examination is dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) and accordingly she has to be considered as eligible.” In my opinion the above judgment would not apply to the case of the petitioners in the present petition. As far as the petitioners in the present case are concerned, it cannot be said that the last date for applying had been extended. It cannot be said that any person who has not applied at all would be eligible to apply under the corrigendum. Thus the petitioners constitute different class than the petitioners in the aforementioned CWP No. 16214 of 2008. In this view of the matter, I hold that the petitioners cannot be held to be eligible and consequently dismiss the writ petition. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 09, 2009. JUDGE `kk'