WP(C) 944/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. M. B. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. R. Pat hak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for respondent No s.1 to 5. Also heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No.6. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have put to challenge the legality and validity of the Advertisemen t, dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). While issuing notices of motion on 21.02.2011, an interim order was passed suspending the said advertise ment and also a notification, dated 18.01.2011, which contained the guidelines f or the purpose of selection and appointment. During the pendency of the writ petition, a notification, dated 10.03.2011, has been published by the State Government, whereby the impugned advertisement, date d 19.01.2011, and the impugned guidelines covered by the notification, dated 18. 01.2011, have been withdrawn. In the backdrop of the above facts, it is clear that this writ petition has beco me infructuous and is hereby disposed of accordingly leaving the writ petitioner s at liberty to approach this Court, in future, if situation so demands. Let copy of the notification, dated 10.03.2011, aforementioned, which Mr. Pathak , learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has submitted, shall be kept w ith the record of this case.