CWP(T) No. 6704/2008 and CWP(T) No. 6707/2008. 18.08.2010 Present: Mr. P. C. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. The petitioner(s) has prayed for the following reliefs:- “7(i) That a Writ, directions may be issued against the respondents to permit the applicant to contest the interview for the post of Shastri teacher. (ii) That the respondents be directed not be declare the result of the interview till the applicant and others eligible persons already working with the respondents are permitted to contest the interview. (iii) Any other relief and order, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant. (iv) The applicant be awarded the costs of the Original Application against the respondents.” 2. No interim order was passed when the matter came up for hearing initially. In fact petition was dismissed in default and restored later on. 3. With the passage of time the petition has become infructuous. The reply filed by the respondents clearly explains the position which has yet not been controverted by the petitioner. In the reply filed in CWP(T) No. 6707 of 2008 it is stated that:- “Para 3. That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. Because as per the information received from the respondent No. 3 District Primary Education Officer Nahan, the applicant never applied -2- for the post of Shastri, which was to be filled in by the District Education Officer Nahan, by way of interview. Therefore, the question of forwarding the application of the applicant does not arise at all. Whereas all other candidates having similar qualification and posted in the same Education Block had applied for well in time and the application of those teacher with no objection certificates were forwarded to the office of respondent No.2 District Primary Officer Nahan. The copy of of showing this fact is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R-I.” Para-6 (iv). “… … In this regard it is submitted that the applicant never applied for post of Shastri, which was to be filled in by the District Education Officer Nahan. Therefore, question of forwarding the application of the applicant does not arise at all. ... …” 4. In these circumstances the present petitions without any substance are dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18, 2010 (PK)