IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.588 of 1994 1. Chandeshwar Ray, Son of Ram Khelawan Rai, Resident of Village Bhualpur, P.S. Marhaura, District Saran. 2. Ram Yatan Sharma, Son of late Saryug Sharma, Resident of Village Pansurai, P.S. Khudaganj, District Nalanda. 3. Ayodhya Shukla, Son of Kuldip Shukla, Resident of Village- Mitanda, P.S. Shivsagar, District Rohtas. 4. Raj Nandan Singh, Son of late Ray Deoki Nandan Singh, Resident of Village Mathurapur, P.S. Panbatta, District Khagaria. 5. Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of late Baidyanath Singh, Resident of Village Dhandiha, P.S. Koilawan, District Bhojpur. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Head Office) Bihar, Patna-cum-Member Secretary, in the office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat at Patna. 3. The Regional Inspector General of Police, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range Patna-cum- Chairman Deputy Selection Committee III. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 4.8.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. From reading of the following relief; 1(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents for allowing the petitioners to participate in the competitive written Examination taken by the respondent no.2 on 22.1.1994 and 23.1.1994 for which they are legally eligible candidates because they have competed in Physical Examination, and further 2 for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the posts of Sub Inspector in case of their succeeding in the examination in pursuance of Advertisement no.2/93 under respondent no.2 and/or further for passing any other appropriate order for which the petitioners will be found entitled in the eye of law. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing memo no. 13 dated 13th January, 1994 passed by the respondent no.3 and for allowing the petitioner no.3 to sit in competitive written examination taken by the respondent no.2 on 22.1.1994 & 23.1.1994; it would appear that the matter has become virtually not only academic but also infructuous. The writ application, in fact, was earlier also dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and got restored but, today also, there is no assistance from the counsel for the petitioner. 3 That being so, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)