IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 7802 of 2008. Date of decision: January 1, 2010. Hukam Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner in the petition has prayed main relief that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents to sponsor the name of petitioner for Upper Class Officers Training forthwith. The case of the petitioner is that he completed Intermediate Class Officers Training held at Darongarh, District Kangra and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 31.12.1996. 2. The petitioner has alleged that he was eligible for Upper Class Officers Training Course and his name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla vide memo dated 12.3.2001. The respondents however did not take steps for sponsoring his name for the said course, whereas, the names of other persons have been recommended. The petitioner had made representation dated 29.5.2001 to the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur where the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… petitioner was posted. The petitioner has not received any intimation regarding sponsoring his case for said training course, whereas persons junior to him have already been sponsored for said training course. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking above relief. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that petitioner was awarded punishment of censure and he was not eligible for the training of Upper School Course under the currency of punishment. The name of the petitioner was considered by the DPC but due to punishment of censure inflicted upon the petitioner on 14.2.2001, he was held to be not eligible to undergo that course and therefore, his name was not recommended. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 14.6.2009 has given his age 59 years and he has stated that he has already retired on 31.8.2007. In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the petition now is of academic interest only. The petition has become infructuous due to subsequent events. 4. This petition was transferred to this court in view of abolition of erstwhile Tribunal where the petition was earlier filed. From 8.10.2009 till today, the petition has been taken up five times but only on 24.12.2009 appearance was put in on behalf of the petitioner through vice counsel and on other dates none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It appears the petitioner himself is not interested in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. January 1, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.