IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6386 of 2000 1.SACHIDANAND PANDEY S/O KATE AYODHYA NATH PANDEY R/O VILL AND POST POKHRAMA, NEAR KAJRA, P.S.SURYAGARHA DIST. LAKHISARAI 2. TEJ NARAYAN PATHAK S/O LATE BALRAM PATHAK AT P.O AND P.S. NAO KOTHI, DIST. BEGUSARAI. 3. SACHIDANAND GAUTAM S/O SRI RAMASHISH SHARMA, VILL. DEOGHARA P.O. DHANGAWAN, P.S. KAKO, DIST. JEHANABAD. 4. RAJENDRA MAHTO S/O SRI BILAT MAHTO, VILL. GUDARIGHAT P.O. SHRI- PURGAHAR, P.S.KHANPUR,DIST. SAMASTIPUR. 5. AYODHYA SAHU S/O LATE BHATU SAHU VILL,TETRI, P.S.BALIA DIST. BEGUSARAI 6. SIKANDER PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE RAMESHWAR YADAV VILL HALIMPUR P.S. NEW RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT MUNGER 7. LALAN SINGH S/O SRI SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH VILL. BALI P.O.ALWALPUR DIST PATNA. 8. DINANATH SHARMA, S/O SHRI ISHWAR DAYAL SHARMA, VILL. MUSTAFAPUR , P.O. BHAKHARI, P.S. DHANARUA, DIST. PATNA. 9. SHARJANAND MISHRA S/O SRI JHARKHANID MISHRA P.S. SULTANGANJ DIST. BHAGALPUR. 10. ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMJI SAHU, VILL AND P.O ALAULI, P.S. ALAULI DIST.KHAGARIA. 11. RAM NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE HEMANT SINGH R/O VILL. PAKRI P.S. GOH DIST. AURANGABAD. -----PETITIONERS Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RES- OURCES AND DEVELOPMENT , GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY , PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RES- OURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION , GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL SERVICE BOARD,BISCOMAN TOWAR, 6TH FLOOR GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 7. THE MEMBER AND SECRETARY , BIHAR SCHOOL SERVICE BOARD, BISCOMAN TOWER, 6TH FLOOR, GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA. -----RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. M.Chatterjee,Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.15, Mr. Bipin Kumar 08 11.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have raised a grievance against a 2 notification contained in Annexure-13 which does not bear any date or number but it merely shows the criteria and other norms for calling applicants to interview pursuant to advertisement no. 1/88. It is not in dispute that subsequently advertisement no. 1/88 itself has been cancelled by the State and challenge to such cancellation has filed before this court both in writ jurisdiction as well as in L.P.A. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the said matter is pending in the Supreme Court vide S.L.P. Numbers 19245 and 17485 of 2003. So far as the decision of State Government and this court are concerned, they make this writ petition infructuous because concerned advertisement itself has become cancelled. The apprehension of the petitioners is that they may be adversely affected by decision of the Supreme Court. Once the matter has reached the Apex Court it will serve no purpose to keeps the present writ petition pending. Hence the writ petition is dismissed as infructous. The decision by the Apex Court will govern the cases of the petitioner also. Sym ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)