IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No.13337 of 2001 Amrik Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.15855 of 2001 Raman Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.1560 of 2002 Anil Kumar Ohri … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No.3908 of 2002 Mukesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents Date of decision: 26th July, 2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.13337 of 2001 & CWP No.3908 of 2002. Civil Writ Petitions No.13337 & 15855 of 2001; 1560 & 3908 of 2002 Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.15855 of 2001 & CWP No.1560 of 2002; Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, four cases viz. (1) CWP No.13337 of 2001 filed by Amrik Singh; (2) CWP No.15855 of 2001 filed by Raman Kumar; (3) CWP No.1560 of 2002 filed by Anil Kumar Ohri; and (4) CWP No.3908 of 2002 filed by Mukesh Kumar, shall be decided together. For reference, the facts are being gathered from CWP No.13337 of 2001. In the present writ petitions, a prayer has been made that the notice dated 16th March, 2000 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Municipal Council, Pathankot, whereby it had invited applications for appointment to the post of Fireman, be quashed, as the upper age limit of 35 years prescribed therein was contrary to the instructions (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government. It was further prayed that the interview held on 31st March, 2000 in pursuance of the notice (Annexure P-10) and the appointment of respondents No.5 to 12 vide letter dated 28th June, 2001 (Annexure P-8) be quashed. This Court is of the opinion that since respondents No.5 to 12 had joined their place of posting in the year 2001, it is too late in the day to say that it was beyond the competence of the employer to relax the age limit. Furthermore, in pursuance of the notice (Annexure P-10), petitioner had also participated in the selection process and having participated, he cannot lay a challenge to the selection process on the ground that the age prescribed in the notice inviting applications was against the instructions. 2 Civil Writ Petitions No.13337 & 15855 of 2001; 1560 & 3908 of 2002 Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions at this belated stage and the same are dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 26, 2010 rps 3