IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.12055 OF 1998 MD.ASLAM,S/O MD. MANZRUAL HAQUE, R./O VILLAGE RAMPUR BAKHARI, P.O. BASANTPUR, BHAKHARI, P.S AND DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT HIGHLY SKILLED MECHANIC, CENTRAL WORKSHOP, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSH, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE V.C.,RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR. 2.THE REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSHA, SAMASTIPUR. 3.CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSHA, SAMASTIPUR. 4.HARE KRISHNA THAKUR, S/O RAM SABAD THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE KUBAULI RAM, P.S DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT JUNIOR MECHANIC, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSHA, SAMASTIPUR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ---------- 08/ 25.07.2011 No one appears for the petitioner even today. Earlier also when this case was called upon on 22.07.2011, the petitioner had remained unrepresented. Mr. A.K Upadhayay, learned counsel for the University and Mr. Mukesh Dayal, counsel for respondent no. 4 are present. Mr. Upadhayay submits that the writ application, so far it relates to the petitioner for his own appointment, has been held to be not maintainable in the earlier order of this Court dated 29.3.2000 2 reading as follows:- "In pursuance of Court's order, the Respondents have produced the original file relating to selection of 4th Respondent. The Registrar of the University is also present in the Court. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has been appointed against the 65% quota, vide Annexure-A dated 30th November, 1999 and joined the post and is working. In the circumstances, the first part of the prayer for appointment of the petitioner has become infructuous. The case is admitted for hearing relating to legality and propriety of appointment of 4th Respondent." He has also submitted that the remaining grievance of the petitioner as with regard to alleged flow in the appointment of respondent no. 4 could have made any sense only if the petitioner had sought to press this application. In the considered opinion of this Court the submission of Mr. Upadhyaya has to be accepted inasmuch as from conduct of the petitioner and the continued absence of his 3 counsel it is manifest that both of them have lost their interest in this case. That being so, this application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)