2025:UHC:6186-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/601/2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 1. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent No. 2 2. Petitioners were desirous of appointment as Assistant Professor; however, they had crossed the upper age limit fixed by the State Government. Thus feeling aggrieved petitioners filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to declare clause 5 of advertisement dated 04-12-2021 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory so far as it relates to the upper age limit and consequently quash the same. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application forms of the Petitioners and allow them to participate in the selection process against the post of Assistant Professor initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 04-12-2021 iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give benefit of relaxation in upper age to the Petitioners in view of G.O. No. 764/XXX(2)/2021-30(10) 2019 dated 27-08-2021.” 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. S.S. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Uttarakhand. Annexure-2 to the said counter affidavit is a Government Order dated 06.01.2022. 4. Perusal of the said Government Order reveals that relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of one year was given to all candidates during selection year 2021-22. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission 2025:UHC:6186-DB thereafter issued a corrigendum on 19.01.2022, granting benefit of age relaxation to all the candidates. 5. Based on the said document, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submit that the reliefs as claimed do not survive. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.07.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18 b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC 9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.18 10:19:07 +05'30'