CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2002 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.12825 of 2007 & CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.957 OF 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 14, 2008 Lovleen Arora .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) On the oral request of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today. 2000 posts of Social Study Master/Mistresses were advertised through an advertisement dated 14.11.1999. The maximum age limit provided for eligibility was 40 years as on 6.12.1999. The petitioner applied for being appointed to the post so CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2002 (O&M) :{ 2 }: advertised. The age of the petitioner as on 6.12.1999 was 40 years 3 months. Claiming that the petitioner was entitled to the relaxation of the age in view of the instructions, Annexures P-6 and P-7, she submitted her application. Her application was, however, not entertained and in this regard she was informed through letter, Annexure P-9, that her candidature was rejected on the ground of being over age. Claiming that some of the candidates having age even above 41 years, had been issued roll numbers, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents to issue her a roll number and allow her to appear in the written examination for selection to the post of Social Study Teacher. As per the averments, the test was to be held on 20.1.2002. On 17.1.2002, this Court granted permission to the petitioner to appear in the test on her own risk and responsibility. This order was not to confer any benefit to the petitioner ultimately and was to be subject to the final order passed in the petition. Direction was issued that the result of the petitioner be not declared. Thus, under the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner appeared in the written examination held in the year 2002. On 15.2.2002, the writ petition was admitted to be listed on 10.4.2002. An application is moved, seeking direction for the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview, which was slated for 6.11.2004. On 29.10.2004, the petitioner was granted permission to appear in the interview on her own risk and responsibility. Result of her interview, however, was not be declared CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2002 (O&M) :{ 3 }: till the decision of the writ petition. The Court also clarified that this interim order would be subject to the final order to be passed in the main writ petition. The writ petition is pending adjudication before this Court. The petitioner has now moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No.12825 of 2007 for declaring her result. It is prayed that the writ petition would need to be decided only if the petitioner has been successful in the written test and interview. It is rightly conceded by the petitioner that if she had remained unsuccessful in the written test and the interview, then the writ petition would be rendered infructuous. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, learned State counsel, on instructions, points out today that the petitioner has secured 66 marks out of total 200 marks. According to the State counsel, the last candidate, who was called for interview in general category, out of those who had succeeded in written test, had obtained 112 marks. Accordingly, the petitioner was not eligible for being called for an interview. She, however, was called for interview in view of the interim order passed by this Court. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner had not qualified in the written test to become eligible for being called for an interview. It is otherwise conceded by the petitioner that the writ petition need not be adjudicated as the petitioner has not qualified in the written examination. Since the petitioner had not qualified in the written examination, she has no right to be considered for appointment to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2002 (O&M) :{ 4 }: the post of Social Study Teacher. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. February 14 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE