JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer: (i) Writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of the Certiorari to quash the notice dated 12.12.2015 by virtue of which the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected for being over aged, particularly when the petitioners applied were within the age as prescribed in the notification. (ii). Writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of the mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners to be within the age limit for the purpose of applying to the post with a further direction to call the petitioners for the purpose of interview and proceed in the selection process without taking into consideration the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioner. (iii). Or in the alternative quash the subsequent notification if it is intended to prescribe the different age limit in violation of the statutory rules. (iv). Any other order, direction or writ though not specifically prayed for, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, proper and convenient, in the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. (v). For this act of kindness, the petitioner in duty bound shall ever pray for prosperous life of lordships. 2. On 17.07.2017, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed learned counsel for the J&K Public Service Commission to produce the result of the petitioners before this Court in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing. 3. Mr. F.A. Natnoo, learned counsel for J&K Public Service Commission has produced the result of the petitioner in compliance of this Court order dated 17.07.2017. A perusal of the result reveals that petitioner No. 1 has secured total of 56.36 % marks while petitioner No. 2 has secured 60.85 % marks whereas cut of marks for the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit was 63.02 % in open merit (OM) category. In other words, the petitioners have failed to secure minimum cut of marks for their selection. Copy of the result is taken on record. 4. In view of the aforementioned position, the writ petition doesn’t survive for consideration for; even if the petitioners were to succeed in the writ petition, they would still not be selected on account of not obtaining the minimum cut of marks. 5. Copy of the result is taken on record. 4. In view of the aforementioned position, the writ petition doesn’t survive for consideration for; even if the petitioners were to succeed in the writ petition, they would still not be selected on account of not obtaining the minimum cut of marks. 5. In the light of the aforementioned position, the writ petition along with connected MP(s) is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.