CWP No.452 of 2006 a/w CWP No.461 of 2006. 08.08.2008 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CWP No.461 of 2006. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Since the issues involved in these two writ petitions are the same, these are disposed of by a common order. By way of these writ petitions, a challenge was laid to the following conditions enumerated in the prospectus:- (i) Only such in-service candidates are eligible who have rendered five years of service in Rural areas; (ii) Only such candidates are eligible who have minimum 15 years service left for superannuation after competing the PG Course. A Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order on 28.6.2006. The Division Bench up-held the stipulation in the prospectus to the effect that the candidate belonging to the service category should have minimum 15 years service left for superannuation after competing the PG Course. This condition was found neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, so far as the second condition requiring the candidate to have rendered five years service in rural areas, was prima facie found unconstitutional as well as factually based on the material which has no nexus with the matter and the objectives to be achieved. The candidates including the petitioners on the basis of the earlier orders passed by this Court and order dated 28.6.2006 were permitted to sit in the examination. The petitioner in CWP No.452 of 2006 and petitioner No.3 (Dr. Parvesh Jhingta) in CWP No.461of 2006 had qualified the competitive examination and was admitted to PG Course. They had already completed two years of the PG Course and currently are in 3rd year of M.D. Course. The learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that the other petitioners had not qualified in the written examination though they were permitted to do so on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. It is contended jointly by the parties that the order dated 28.6.2006 was not assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has attained finality. The learned counsel have jointly contended that the present writ petitions have become infructuous since the petitioners were permitted to sit in the examination and one of the petitioners is in 3rd year of the M.D. Course. The learned Additional Advocate General has also informed the Court that the State is not insisting for the conditions which were under challenge in these writ petitions for future academic session. In other words, the interim order of this Court, dated 28.6.2006 has been accepted by the respondent-State. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of having become infructuous. However, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner in CWP No.452 of 2006 and petitioner No.3 (Dr. Parvesh Jhingta) in CWP No.461 of 2006 after final examination of three years M.D. course. No costs. August 8, 2008 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), J.