IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18809 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 08, 2009 Anil Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the list published by the respondents, of eligible candidates (Annexure P-4) in regard to respondent No.9 and such other persons. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer holding an additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and is deputed in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The petitioner obtained the degree in CWP No.18809 of 2009 [2] B.Tech Civil (Water Resource Engineering) in the year 2003. It has been pleaded that the petitioner as also respondent No.9 applied for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil). Annexure P-4 is the list of eligible candidates published by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Respondent No.9 has been shown at Serial No.342 in the list. It has been asserted that respondent No.9 is not eligible for appointment. The list published by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, indicates that the persons who are ineligible such as respondent No.9, are being considered as eligible. Learned counsel further contends that the facts have been made known to the respondents by way of filing a representation, however, the respondents are going on with the selection process on inclusion of ineligible candidates, such as respondent No.9. So far as respondent No.9 is concerned, learned counsel states that he obtained the degree through distance education from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (Deemed University), Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan which has been CWP No.18809 of 2009 [3] impleaded as respondent No.8 in the petition. In view of the admitted fact that selection has not been finalised, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is premature. However, in view of the facts that have been brought out, the respondents are directed to consider a copy of the petition as notice of the petitioner and consider the same before considering the candidature of respondent No.9 for selection for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil). The petition is disposed of with the above directions. Copy of the order be given dasti. (AJAI LAMBA) December 08, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?