JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent-State. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “7. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to: (A) quash and set aside the order dated 9.9.2005, Annexure-A to this petition. (B) direct the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Resident Medical Officer (Ayurved) Class-II, w.e.f. 5.4.2005 with all consequential benefits. (C) grant any other relief or pass any other order, which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) award the cost of the petition. (E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the further implementation and operation of the order dated 9.9.2005 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Resident Medical Officer (Ayurved) Class-II. (F) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, direct the respondent authorities not to appoint respondent No. 3 to the aforesaid post. And for this act of kindness and justice the petitioner as in duty bound shall pray forever.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 In the year 1996, the petitioner obtained the degree of B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery) from Gujarat Ayurvedic University, Jamnagar wherein the petitioner secured First Class. 2.2. Gujarat Public Service Commission issued a public advertisement dated 15.03.2003 inviting applications for various posts mentioned in the said advertisement to be reached to the address mentioned therein on or before 16.04.2003. 2.3. In the said advertisement, at serial no. 2.2. Gujarat Public Service Commission issued a public advertisement dated 15.03.2003 inviting applications for various posts mentioned in the said advertisement to be reached to the address mentioned therein on or before 16.04.2003. 2.3. In the said advertisement, at serial no. 76, applications were invited for the post of Resident Medical Officer, (Ayurved) Class-II (in all 7 posts) from the candidates possessing a Bachelors Degree from the Ayurvedic University, Jamnagar or from any other recognized University and possessing experience of three years in rendering treatment by Ayurvedic system of treatment in a Hospital or Dispensary and possessing sufficient knowledge of Sanskrit, Gujarati and Hindi Language. 2.4. The petitioner was complying all the requirements prescribed in the said advertisement and hence, applied on 03.04.2003 for the aforesaid post in the prescribed form duly filled in by the petitioner. 2.5. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the petitioner appeared for the written examination dated 30.11.2003 and passed the same. Therefore, vide letter dated 29.11.2004, the petitioner was called for the interview to be held on 17.12.2004. 2.6. On 05.01.2005, the petitioner received a letter issued by the respondent whereby, the petitioner was informed that out of the seven persons, being fit for the appointment to the said post, name of the petitioner was included in the Select List at Serial No. 1. 2.7. Thereafter, vide order dated 5.4.2005, all the candidates were given appointment, but the petitioner was not so appointed. 2.8. During the course of process of selection of the petitioner to the aforesaid post, vide letter dated 06.04.2004, the petitioner was informed by the respondent authority that on verification of the application of the petitioner, it was revealed that the self attested certificate of private practice, on the letter pad of the Dispensary was not annexed with the said application and directed to furnish the copy of the said certificate with the place, time and address of the Dispensary so as to reach the office of the Commission within ten days from the receipt of the said letter. 2.9. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner furnished the said certificate along with the certificate issued by a Hospital managed by Pramukhswami Health Services, Bhavnagar. 2.10. 2.9. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner furnished the said certificate along with the certificate issued by a Hospital managed by Pramukhswami Health Services, Bhavnagar. 2.10. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 09.02.2005 that the certificate dated 18.12.2004 of Shri Swaminarayan Sanskar Dham, Bhavnagar, which was produced by the petitioner personally, did not reveal as to whether the petitioner rendered services for part time or full time and accordingly necessary clarification was sought from the petitioner. 2.11. The petitioner, vide letter dated 19.02.2005, rendered necessary clarification along with a further certificate of Shri Swaminarayan Sanskar Dham, Bhavnagar revealing that the petitioner was rendering full time service at the said Hospital. On the same day, a statement of the petitioner also came to be recorded wherein also, the petitioner stated the timings of his working hours in detail and in the said statement, the petitioner, in connection with the compliant filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 3, has stated that he was engaged in the service of the Central Government in Postal Department as a Marketing Executive at Bhavnagar Head Post Office and the Department of Post has No Objection if the petitioner is appointed on the present post as Resident Medical Officer (Ayurved) Class-II. 2.12. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 11.04.2005 to respondent since the candidates placed at a lower level to the petitioner were given appointment prior to the petitioner, who was at S. No. 1 on the said Select List. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 03.05.2005 that in view of the compliant filed against the petitioner, necessary report was sent to respondent No. 1 and that further action will be taken in accordance with the decision of respondent No. 1. 2.13. Thereafter on 06.06.2005, the petitioner was issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why the petitioner should not be declared unfit on account of breach of undertaking given in the application form and further to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be debarred, for a period of next five years, from appearing in all the Examinations/Direct selection to be held by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner responded to the said notice vide a detailed reply dated 17.06.2005. 2.14. The petitioner responded to the said notice vide a detailed reply dated 17.06.2005. 2.14. The petitioner received a letter on 11.07.2005 from respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid reply of the petitioner cannot be accepted and further informed the petitioner that if the petitioner wants to make special representation/clarification, he shall remain present before the Secretary of respondent No. 1 on 19.07.2005 at 12.00 hours. On 19.07.2005, the petitioner personally remained present before the concerned officer and after having oral discussion, submitted a written representation dated 19.07.2005. 2.15. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 09.09.2005, the petitioner was debarred for five years from all the Examinations and Direct Selection to be held by respondent No. 1 from the date of issuance of the said order as well as the candidature of the petitioner was also cancelled for the Advertisement No. 76/2002-03 i.e. for the post in question. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th September, 2005 whereby, the selection of the petitioner for the post of Resident Medical Officer, Class-II was cancelled by the respondent-Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short ‘GPSC’). 3.1. It was submitted that in view of the facts stated hereinabove, the petition is required to be allowed as the selection of the petitioner is wrongly cancelled by the respondent-GPSC in as much as, the petitioner was having the required experience for the post which was advertised. 3.2. It was further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner for nondisclosure of the employment with the Central Government as the Application Form did not contain any such column or stipulation and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same is for cancelling the selection of the petitioner and debarring the petitioner from exams and selection for five years which is already over in the year 2010. Therefore, the impugned order has lived its life and the same would not survive after 2010. 5. In view of such undisputed fact, the petition has become infructuous and without entering into the merits of the matter, the same is accordingly disposed of keeping all the rights of the petitioner open for being selected after 2010 in accordance with law. Rule is discharged.