IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1061 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 22, 2009 Raj Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.K.Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari,J. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not come within the parameters of age as also that he did not have the requisite qualifications on the cut off date. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not outside the prescribed age group may be correct. However, it is not disputed that his result was declared in January, 2007 whereas the cut off date was 21.08.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since a corrigendum was issued in the year 2008 and in the period between the advertisement and the corrigendum he had acquired the necessary qualification, he should have been considered eligible and called for interview. As far as the second argument is concerned I have already rejected the same in CWP No. 212 of 2009 decided on 08.01.2009. C.W.P. No. 1061 of 2009 -2- Consequently this writ petition is dismissed as regards the second argument in terms of the decision taken in CWP No. 212 of 2009 aforesaid. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 22, 2009 sunita