C.M. No.8881 of 2010 in/and -1- C.W.P. No.7427 of 1997 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.8881 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No.7427 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2010 Ajay Kumar Sharma and another ……Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.8881 of 2010 in/and -2- C.W.P. No.7427 of 1997 (O&M) C.M. No.8881 of 2010 For the reasons stated, application is allowed. Dismissal order dated 06.07.2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. C.W.P. No.7427 of 1997 (O&M) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present petition, petitioners are challenging the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 on the ground that appointment under reserved category was given beyond 50% of the total number of posts advertised. The further claim of the petitioners is to give appointment to the petitioners after quashing the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4. Posts were advertised on 06.01.1996. As per the advertisement, the upper age limit for the candidates seeking appointment was 40 years. On being asked repeatedly, learned Counsel for the petitioners is not able to tell as to whether petitioners are now overage or still within the age limit prescribed for the post. It seems that petitioners would have crossed the upper age limit by this time. The question of the legality of appointment granted to respondents No.3 and 4 seems to be academic now in view of the fact that petitioners are now overage and can not be given any appointment. Moreover in the opinion of this Court, merely because names of the petitioners are mentioned in C.M. No.8881 of 2010 in/and -3- C.W.P. No.7427 of 1997 (O&M) the select list does not mean that they are entitled for the appointment. Ordinarily no mandamus can be issued giving appointment merely because petitioners were selected for the post. Respondents No.3 and 4 are working on the post w.e.f. 1997. It would not be equitable to disturb their appointment now after 13 years. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( ALOK SINGH ) 28th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish