CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Lakhvir Singh vs Punjab Public Service Commission and Another <BR> Ruchi Aggarwal Vs Punjab Public Service Commission <BR> Supnandan Deep Uppal Vs State of Punjab and Others <BR> Divya Ghai Vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 P&H CK 0350

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajai Lamba, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No''s. 19739, 19751, 20214 and 21280 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 470 words

Ajai Lamba, J.—This order shall dispose of a bunchof writ petitions viz. CWP No. 19739 of 2010'' Lakhvir Singh v. Punjab Public Service Commission and Anr. CWP No. 19739 of 2010''; CWP No. 19751 of 2010 Ruchi Aggarwal v. Punjab Public Service Commission CWP No. 19751 of 2010''; CWP No. 20214 of 2010 ''Supnandan Deep Uppal v. State of Punjab and Ors. CWP No. 20214 of 2010.''; CWP No. 20341 of 2010 ''Agya Pal Singh v. State ofPunjab and Ors. CWP No. 20341 of 2010.''; CWP No. 20682 of 2010 ''Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. CWP No. 20341 of 2010.''; CWP No. 20991 of 2010 ''Saravjeet Kaur v. PunjabPublic Service Commission CWP No. 20991 of 2010''; CWP No. 21059 of 2010''Jagsir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. CWP No. 21059 of 2010.''; CWP No. 21181 of 2010 ''Ankit Jindal v. Punjab PublicService Commission CWP No. 21181 of 2010''; CWP No. 21280 of 2010 ''Divya Ghai v. State of Punjab and Anr. CWP No. 21280 of 2010.''; CWP No. 21330 of 2010 ''Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. CWP No. 21330 of 2010.''; CWP No. 21366 of 2010''Charandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. CWP No. 21366 of 2010.'';and CWP No. 21600 of 2010 ''Gurtej Singh v. Punjab Public Service Commission and Anr. CWP No. 21600 of 2010.'' as they involve common questions of law and facts.

2.

The Petitioners in all these writ petitions, applied for Punjab Civil Services Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination,2009. After considering the Application Forms of the Petitioners, the Respondents have shown the Petitioners as ineligible in a list published byte Respondents.

3.

By way of filing the writ petitions, the Petitioners claim that the error committed in filling up the Application Forms is hyper-technical and does not go to the root of the matter and therefore, it needs to be corrected, particularly, in view of public notice issued by Respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission inviting objections/ representations from persons who have been shown as ineligible to take Punjab Civil Services Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2009.

4.

It has further been contended that the Petitioners filed objections/ representations in response to the public notice within the time stipulated i.e. on or before 31.8.2010.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State, on instructions from Mr. I.S. Sandhu,Controller of Examinations, Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, states that the cases of the Petitioners have been considered. The nature of errors committed by the Petitioners being only minor/ clerical, and relatively inconsequential, the Petitioners are being allowed to take Punjab Civil Services Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2009, scheduled to be conducted on19.12.2010. In this view of the matter, the petitions have been rendered infructuous.

6.

In view of the statement given on behalf of the Respondents, the petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.