IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16593 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 23, 2010 Satnam Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Medical Officer (Dental). 2. Learned counsel contends that a Public Notice/ Corrigendum has been published in newspaper `The Tribune’ dated 23.9.2010 (page 8) to the effect that “ The candidates for the post of Medical Officer (General), Medical Officer (Dental) and Drug Inspectors who fulfil the educational qualifications and registration up to the date of CWP No.16593 of 2010 [2] interview will be eligible”. 5. When the matter was heard on 15.9.2010, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner stood first in his category, in merit, for recruitment as Medical Officer (Dental). Vide Annexure P-5, however, the petitioner has been held ineligible as the petitioner completed internship on 30.6.2010. As per advertisement, Annexure P-1 (page-16 of the paper book), a candidate was required to submit the papers by post or by hand, as per the format, along with the attested copies of testimonials/degree etc. before 24.5.2010. Surely, the petitioner had not completed his internship before 30.6.2010 and, therefore, prima facie, reason for holding the petitioner ineligible vide Annexure P-5, seems to be valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to draw the attention of the court towards rules or some other material to show that completion of internship would not be a condition precedent for eligibility. Adjourned sine die.” 6. In view of the corrigendum to which reference has been made above, it becomes evident that the petitioner became eligible to compete for the post of Medical Officer (Dental) before the date of interview i.e. 25.9.2010. 7. In view of the above changed circumstances, the petition is disposed of. (AJAI LAMBA) September 23, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?