IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.600 of 2010 (O&M) Rishipal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This is second round of litigation by the petitioner before this court. Earlier writ petition was disposed of in view of law laid down by this Court in Naresh Kumar Vs.State of Haryana & others, (CWP No.7952 of 2004) decided on 5.11.2004 (Annexure P- 4) and Balraj Singh & others Vs.State of Haryana & others (CWP No.19965 of 2006), decided on 12.10.2008 (Annexure P-6). The directions were given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for detailment on a course from the date his junior was so detailed. Petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that he was less than 35 years of age and so could not be detailed for B-1 Course on the date his junior was so detailed. The petitioner has again approached this court and has impleaded his junior as respondent No.5 to plead that he would be entitled to detailment on B-1 Course. In response, the respondents Civil Writ Petition No.600 of 2010 (O&M) :2: have disclosed that the age of the petitioner is less than 35 years. The age of respondent No.5 is not disclosed either in the petition or anywhere. It is only the seniority which has been taken as a ground to seek detailment on a course by the petitioner and not the age factor. Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to have instructions in regard to the age of respondent No.5. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh petition in case he is survived with any cause. The writ petition is dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE