IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.366 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Virender Singh -----Appellant Vs. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against selection of private respondent to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts). 2. The appellant challenged the appointment of the private respondent on the ground that maximum age limit for recruitment to the post in question could be only 40 years, as per instructions dated 22.9.1999, Annexure P-1, whereas in the present case, the advertisement dated 8.12.2004 prescribed the maximum age limit to be 45 years. 3. Stand of the appellant was contested on behalf of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission and it was pointed out that under the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission LPA No.366 of 2010 (Officers and Employees Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1999, conditions of recruitment could be laid down by the Commission. There was also provision for relaxation in the eligibility criteria. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the instructions in question could not debar prescription of higher age limit, as instructions were basically intended to apply to entry level posts and not to higher posts. It was also noted that the private respondent had already resigned. It was further held that the appellant had participated in the selection process and was estopped from challenging the same. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 has already resigned. In this view of the matter, the question raised in the appeal has become academic. Moreover, under the Regulations, the Commission could prescribe higher age limit. The advertisement had duly prescribed the age to be 45 years. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 19, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2