IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 4983 of 2001 Vishram Singh Negi ……….Petitioner. Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamoli and others …….Respondents Present : Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) 1. The petitioner was working as a “Naib Tehsildar” on ad hoc basis. He had filed a writ petition for the following prayers :- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be please to issue :- (a) Suitable direction, orders or writs including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar and to pay petitioner regular monthly salary on the said post. (b) Direct to the respondents to regularise the adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Naib Tahsildar on which he has working continuously since 14.10.2000. (c) Suitable direction, order or writ in addition to and on in substitute of what has been prayed above as may be found expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award the cost of the writ petition, to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has stated at the bar that during the pendency of the writ petition, he has been promoted as Tehsildar. The petitioner had only filed the writ petition with the prayer that he may be regularised on the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. By an interim order of this Court dated 2 1.10.2003, the following order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court :- “Heard. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as ld. Standing Counsel. According to ld. Counsel for the petitioner the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted regularly while the petitioner is being given adhoc promotion for a certain period & after break again promotion is being given. Giving adhoc promotion, itself shows that the appointment was made substantively vacant post on the basis of suitability, therefore it is provided that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue & regular promotion be provided to him, as he was found suitable for the post.” 3. Now the petitioner has been promoted on the post of “Tehsildar” vide order dated 7.10.2009, which is on record. As such, the petitioner contends that cause of action does not survive and he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.11.2011 Avneet