IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5094 of 1995 LALA ARUN KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Adv. For the Respondent: Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.P.-III ***** 10. 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel, appearing for the State. No one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 4. This Writ Application was filed by the petitioner, challenging the validity of the provisional gradation list of Steno-Typist, Saharsa Collectorate (Annexure-2) and also the Order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner of Koshi Division, Saharsa (Annexure - 9 and 10) In the provisional gradation list, name of Respondent No. 4 has been placed above the name of petitioner and the claim of petitioner is that his date of appointment, being prior to the date of appointment of Respondent No. 4 and in the 1st gradation list of the joint cadre, published on 02.09.1997, his name being placed at Srl. No. 124 and the name of Respondent No. 4 being at Srl. No. 194, there was no reason for placing his name in the provisional gradation list of Steno-Typist of 2 Collectorate, Saharsa below the name of Respondent No. 4. This Writ Application was earlier heard and decided by Order, dated 27.02.1996, the claim of the petitioner regarding his seniority over Respondent No. 4 was found correct and, accordingly, the Writ Application was allowed by quashing Annexure- 1, 2 and 9, issuing direction to the Collector, Saharsa for publication of fresh gradation list and for taking all future actions accordingly. Against this Order, LPA No. 421 of 1996 was filed by Respondent No. 4, Md. Unus, alleging that the Order, dated 27.02.1996 is an ex-parte Order. His case was that though he made his appearance and filed his Counter Affidavit, but on the date of hearing of the case, he could not present, as his name was not appearing in the daily cause list. On this technical ground, the order, dated 27.02.1996, passed in the Writ Application, allowing the prayer of the petitioner, was set aside and the Writ Application was remitted back for re-hearing and passing a fresh order. Today, when the matter is taken up, counsel 3 appearing for Respondent No. 4, is not present though his name is appearing in the daily cause list. However, counsel, appearing for the petitioner has intimated the Court that in view of the Order, dated 27.02.1996, passed in the Writ Application, a fresh gradation list was prepared by the Collector, Saharsa and petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4, both were given promotions. Now, both of them have retired. In this view of the matter, the Writ Application itself has become infructuous. Considering these facts, the Writ Application is disposed of as infructuous. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)