WP(C) 3249/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr K Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs T Barman, the lea rned standing counsel for the Social Welfare Department. Also heard Mr R Islam, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Drawing my attention to Paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-oppositi on filed by the respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is appointed in terms of the statement made therein withi n a period of two months, he need not press this writ petition, as it can be dis posed of as infructuous. The relevant sentence of Paragraph-6 is as follows: 6. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the prayer of the petitioner fo r appointment as supervisor against the vacant post is consider subject to appro val of Finance (SIU) Department. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner disposed of and Hon’ble Courts order dated 09.03.2010 is complied with. In the light of the statement made by the respondent No.2 on oath, I do not thin k it necessary to keep this writ petition pending and the same is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Supervis or in the Social Welfare Department within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned standing counsel for the Social Welfare Department by tomorrow (07.09.2011).