IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16989 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 DR. SARABJEET SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DS Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. 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 Annexure P-9 dated 17.9.2010, whereby the respondents have changed the category of the petitioner. While as per the chart (Annexure P- 6), one post of Scheduled Castes (Ex-servicemen) category was reflected, under Annexure P-9, however, the post for the said category has been shown as 'Nil'. 2. On 21.9.2010, when the matter was taken up, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel contends that at the point in time when most of the selection process had been concluded and the Civil Writ Petition No.16989 of 2010 2 petitioner has been shown as highest in merit amongst S.C. (ESM) category, the availability of posts has been changed. S.C. and B.C. categories have been deleted vide order Annexure P-9. Annexure P-9 is totally contrary to Annexure P-6. Annexure P-6 indicates the availability of posts as per advertisement. In the contention of the learned counsel, the number of posts available in various categories cannot be changed at the stage when the selection process is at its completion. Only the viva voce remains to be conducted on 23.09.2010. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DA, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to her in Court. Adjourned to 23.09.2010. Copy of the order be supplied to Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Dr.Sikander Singh, Medical Officer, office of Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, states that, by error, the post in Scheduled Castes (Ex-servicemen) category was left out from Annexure P-9. It was only a clerical error. The post exists and the candidature of the petitioner in that category would be considered. 4. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents, this petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. September 23, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?