IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3839 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: `11th March, 2011. Sukhvir Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Heena Talwar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 14.02.2011 whereby in purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court, their claim regarding enhancement in the upper age limit from 37 to 39 for direct recruitment to the posts like Linemen has been rejected after having been considered by the 'CMD, PSPCL and Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab”. The order is totally cryptic, assigns no reasons and simply by-passes the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision referred to in the order dated 14.02.2011 as well as the one passed by this Court in Ranjit Singh etc. v State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No. 1647 of 2011. It also shows non-application of mind for the reason that the petitioners are not seeking enhancement in age limit from 37 to 45, rather have sought it from 37 to 39 only, namely, the addition of two years in the upper age limit which would be equivalent to the two years apprenticeship undergone by them being a mandatory eligibility condition for appointment as a Lineman. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, as early as possible. Till then no appointment by direct recruitment shall be made against the advertised posts. Disposed of. Dasti. March 11, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE