CWP No. 18398 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18398 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2010 Navneet Kumar Jindal and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the list of selected candidates displayed by Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil). The petitioners were shown as ineligible because as per the case of the official respondents, they did not fulfill eligibility criteria in context of age. 2. Vide order dated 02.12.2009, while issuing notice of motion, the petitioners were directed to be interviewed provisionally. 3. The result in sealed cover has been brought to Court, which has been opened on the directions of the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Smt. Santosh Sharma, Senior Assistant in Punjab Public Service Commission, in reference to record, states that the last person selected in general category to which the petitioners belong, got 72.18 merit marks. CWP No. 18398 of 2009 2 The petitioners in comparative merit, however, are much lower. 5. Petitioner no. 1 got 54.03; petitioner no. 2 got 47.83; petitioner no. 3 got 56.06; petitioner no. 4 got 54.30; petitioner no. 5 got 59.87; petitioner no. 6 got 61.07 and petitioner no. 7 got 59.77 merit marks. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the merit position of the petitioners, the petition is not pressed, however, the legal issue be kept open. 7. This petition is disposed of as not pressed. There is, however, no adjudication on the legal issue raised in the petition, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 16.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?