CWP No. 21595 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21595 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2010 Mandeep Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) & CWP No. 21588 of 2010 Lal Vishwas Bains ........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Punjab Public Services Commission and another .........RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions namely CWP No. 21595 of 2010 entitled Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 21588 of 2010 entitled Lal Vishwas Bains vs. Punjab Public Services Commission and another, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. CWP No. 21595 of 2010 2 2. For reference to record, CWP No. 21595 of 2010 entitled Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another is being taken up. 3. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission to issue Roll No. to the petitioner for taking preliminary competitive examination for Punjab State Civil Services (Combined Competitive Examination), 2009 scheduled to be held on 19.12.2010. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is serving as a ETT Teacher in Punjab State. The Punjab Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to Punjab State Civil Services. The upper age limit for a Punjab Government Employee was relaxable upto 45 years as on 01.01.2009. In context of age, CWP No. 19389 of 2009 was filed before this Court, which was decided vide decision dated 25.05.2010. The provision in the application was interpreted to say that the age relaxation clause would apply to all government employees and not only to Punjab government employees. Corrigendum accordingly was issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission as has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and is dated 22.06.2010 under which, a candidate could file an application by 5.00 P.M. on 14.07.2010. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that taking a cue from the corrigendum, the petitioner filed application form which, however, has been rejected. The name of the petitioner was shown amongst ineligible candidates. Respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission gave a public notice asking ineligible candidates to file objections/representation, if any. The petitioner filed representation Annexure P-9 on 30.08.2010 i.e. within CWP No. 21595 of 2010 3 time stipulated in the public notice. The representation has been rejected vide Annexure P-11. The Punjab Public Service Commission has assigned the reason for rejection stating that the application of the petitioner is not covered under the corrigendum. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is covered under the corrigendum because the petitioner is a government employee and under the corrigendum, government employees were given liberty to file application by 5.00 P.M. on 14.07.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed application by 14.07.2010. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that as per the advertisement, last date for filing application was 28.12.2009. The petitioner does not claim age relaxation, although the petitioner is a government employee. Under such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions detailed in the corrigendum and, therefore, the decision taken by the respondent-Commission is valid and no interference is called for. 8. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents towards which my attention has been drawn. 9. Annexure P-2 is the corrigendum under which applications were invited. Vide the corrigendum, column no. 3 (iii) was changed to say the following:- “The relaxation in the upper age limit of all the government servants would be of 45 years as on dated 01.01.2009.” 10. Corrigendum further stipulates in para no. 5 that “all those government servants who could not earlier send their CWP No. 21595 of 2010 4 application forms due to aforesaid reasons and are now eligible, they may send their application forms on dated 14.07.2010 before 5.00 P.M. in the evening (emphasis supplied). 11. Perusal of para no. 5 extracted above clearly indicates that only the persons who had become eligible in view of the change in column no. 3 (iii), as extracted above, could send their application forms by 14.07.2010. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to take PCS Executive Branch exam even on the last date of filing of application i.e. 28.12.2009. The petitioner, however, did not make any application by the last date of filing applications. The corrigendum makes it clear that it would apply only to government employees who are not from Punjab Government Service, however, have been made eligible after giving relaxation of age. 13. It is the admitted position of the petitioner that the petitioner does not claim age relaxation. 14. Considering the contents of the corrigendum, I find no ground to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The reasons assigned by the respondents are plausible and justifiable and call for no interference for judicial review in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 13.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?