LPA 1741 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1741 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.12.2010 Rakesh Kumar Popli ..Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.Advocate General,Punjab for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant- petitioner holding that the mistake committed for filling up the `Code' relating to age relaxation could not be permitted to be rectified at the instance of the appellant-petitioner. When the appeal came up for hearing on 17.12.2010, we had granted permission to the appellant- petitioner to take his Preliminary Examination for the Punjab Civil Services ( Executive Branch) on 19.12.2010. We also issued direction that the signature of the appellant-petitioner with regard to the mistake committed by him may be obtained either on 20.12.2010 or LPA 1741 of 2010 (O&M) 2 21.12.2010. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State Counsel, has stated that the appellant-petitioner has already taken examination on 19.12.2010 and his result shall be declared as per his performance. According to the learned State counsel, no further direction would be necessary. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner as well as the learned State counsel, we are of the considered view that minor lapses of ticking the wrong `Code' should have been permitted to rectify, particularly when the Commission has itself invited representation by publishing a notice on its website as also in the newspaper. The aforesaid rectification was not of such a nature, which would have the effect of taking away his right to take examination. It is not a case that a candidate was, otherwise, ineligible or that his application form has been received after the due date. Accordingly, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not merit acceptance and accordingly, judgment dated 17.12.2010 (Mark `A') is set aside. We also accept the statement made by the learned State counsel that the result of the appellant-petitioner shall be declared as per his merit and no further direction would be necessary. The appeal stands disposed of. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 21.12.2010 JUDGE VK