CWP No. 6850 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6850 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 07, 2010 Sanjay Kumar and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. 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 certiorari quashing the list displayed on the website wherein the petitioners have been shown as ineligible on the ground that the petitioners are over age for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) 2. On 06.05.2009, the respondents were directed to interview the petitioner provisionally. It was, however, directed that their result shall not be declared without the leave of the Court. 3. On 14.10.2010, the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that result of the petitioners alongwith CWP No. 6850 of 2009 2 comparative merit position, shall be produced if an adjournment is given. Adjourned to 7.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in case the petitioners have not been able to come within the zone of selection, the writ petition would not remain alive." 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that all the petitioners are from general category. The petitioner no. 1 secured 49.66 merit marks. Petitioner no. 2 secured 44.56 merit marks and petitioner no. 3 secured 41.88 merit marks. Last candidate selected in general category secured 64.05 merit marks and, therefore, the petitioners would have no claim to seek appointment. 5. In view of the facts that have emerged on noticing the merit marks obtained by the petitioners as reflected above in comparison to the merit marks of last person selected, this petition is dismissed. The issue of eligibility, however, has not been adjudicated. 07.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?