IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13779 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 07, 2010 Gaganjot Kaur & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate, for Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Affidavit sworn on 6.9.2010 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Relevant contents of the affidavit read as under:- “1. That the benefit sought by the Petitioners has already been given by issuing Roll Nos. for the preliminary examination for PCS (JB) examination 2010 (being conducted by PPSC, Patiala & this Court jointly) as at Annexure `A-1’. 2. That the Registrar (Recruitment) of this Court has also undertaken that the office has no objection if order dated 05.08.2010 passed by Hon’ble Court in CWP No.13779 of 2010 [2] the present Writ Petition is made absolute. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 05.08.2010 passed in the present Writ Petition may kindly be made absolute.” 2. From the above extracted portion, it is evident that respondent No.3 has issued roll numbers to the petitioners for taking preliminary exam and has stated that it would have no objection if interim Order dated 5.8.2010 is made absolute. 3. Order dated 5.8.2010 reads as under:- “This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing list dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) uploaded on the Website by the Punjab Public Service Commission, qua the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners applied for selection to the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2010. As per the essential qualifications given out in the advertisement, the following is relevant:- “3. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION: (i)xx xx xx xx (ii)Punjabi upto Matric or its equivalent Standard.” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners filed application forms, complete in all regards. Certificates showing the fact that the petitioners had passed matriculation examination from the Punjab School Education Board were appended. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that despite such being the facts, the names of the petitioners appear in the list showing ineligible candidates. The petitioners have been conveyed that they have been shown as ineligible because they have not attached the proof of having passed Punjabi in matriculation examination. In the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Punjabi is a compulsory subject in Matric in CWP No.13779 of 2010 [3] the Punjab School Education Board. Since the matriculation certificate has been appended and there is no specific requirement in the advertisement/requirements to append detailed marks, therefore, the petitioners should not have been considered as ineligible. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that it is the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, which is holding the examination and, therefore, ordinarily, it is expected of such a Constitutional Authority to know that Punjabi is a compulsory subject in Matric in the Punjab School Education Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that it has been specifically averred in para-6 of the petition that the petitioners approached the Punjab Public service Commission on 2.8.2010 and have submitted their Detailed Marks Sheets of Matriculation examination, clearly depicting the fact that the petitioners had Punjabi as a subject in Matric. Notice of motion for 07.09.2010. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to take preliminary examination, however, provisionally. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entrusted with any right simply because they have been allowed to take the preliminary examination. The respondents, under the circumstances, are directed to issue provisional roll numbers to the petitioners. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Reader.” 4. By way of this petition, the petitioners claim right to compete. The respondents having permitted the right to the petitioners, cause of action does not survive. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of having been rendered infructuous. (AJAI LAMBA) September 07, 2010 JUDGE avin CWP No.13779 of 2010 [4] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?