IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15134 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 05, 2009 Joginder Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 to 17. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing selection of respondent Nos.4 to 17 [Ex-servicemen (Male)] as Head Masters who have obtained less percentage of marks in basic minimum prescribed academic qualification and basic minimum prescribed professional qualification than the petitioner, as per criteria laid down in Mode of Selection and required experience as mentioned in CWP No.15134 of 2008 [2] advertisement, Annexure P-7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Reply by way of short affidavit of Jagjit Singh Sidhu, Deputy Director (School Administration), Office of Director of Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, has been filed in Court which is taken on record. The stand of the respondents in Para 2 of the affidavit is to the following effect:- “2. That the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed as the name of the petitioner has been recommended for the purpose of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster in the Ex-servicemen male category. However, it would not be out of place to mention here that, since all the posts of Headmasters in the category of Ex-servicemen Male have already been filled up. Hence, in order to accommodate the petitioner, the respondents have to dispense with the services of last selected candidate in his category by adopting the due procedure in accordance with the law.” In view of the stand of the respondents, this petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, however, with direction to the respondents to complete the process as given out in the para reproduced above, within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) October 05, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?