1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.755/2008 Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Judgment :: May 19, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Shailendra Balwada for the appellant. *** This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of Teacher Grade II as per his merit with effect from the date on which persons lower in merit than him, have been appointed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing his writ petition merely because the process of selection was completed, the appointments have been made long back and select list has expired. It was argued that the writ petition was pending for eleven years and the select list cannot be taken to have expired with the lapse of time, and the writ petition ought to be decided on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant, in course of arguments, drew our attention to the document Annexure 4 which indicates that the appellant was thereafter appointed on the post of Teacher vide order dated 22.2.1999 and he had joined the services on 3.3.1999. The only question therefore remains to be decided is whether the appellant should be given benefits for the intervening period. In view of the fact that the 2 appellant secured appointment in the very next year i.e. 1999, consideration of the writ petition with a view to giving effect to such appointment from an year before, would be only an academic exercise. Now when the appellant has secured appointment, grant of such relief on the basis of merit list which was prepared an year therebefore would not be appropriate. We are therefore inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge that writ petition deserves dismissal as the select list expired long back and appointments have already been given against the vacancies then existing. We, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-