IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16690 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 12, 2010 Dr. Neetu Sharma, Patiala .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, with Ms. Jyoti, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. On 16.9.2010, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is little over 35 years of age and wants to compete for the post of Lecturer un- der advertisement Annexure P-1. The required age as provided in the advertisement, however, is between 18 and 35 years (refer page no. 16 of the paper book). Learned counsel contends that the provision of age is contrary to notification issued by the re- spondent-State and published in official gazette on 25.05.2010 wherein, it has been said that:- CWP No.16690 of 2010 [2] “5. Age.--(1) No person shall be recruited to the Serv- ice by direct appointment, if he is less than eighteen years or is more than thirty-seven years of age in the case of technical and non-technical posts on the first day of January of the year immediately preceding the last date, fixed for submission of applications by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be.” It has also been contended that the petitioner has filed ap- plication under advertisement Annexure P-1 on 14.09.2010. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to him in Court. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 shall consider the aspect in the context of observations made above and take a decision. Adjourned to 12.10.2010.” 2. Reply has been filed in Court today which is taken on record. As per the reply, requisite corrigendum has already been published by way of public notice on 15.9.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner has been satisfied. 4. The petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (AJAI LAMBA) October 12, 2010 JUDGE avin