HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3662 OF 2001 Between: R. Devadas ..... Petitioner AND The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad. .....Respondent :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : None Dated: 26.12.2006 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to allow him to take part in the written examination to be held on 04.03.2001 for recruitment of Additional Public Prosecutors, Grade-II. Since no one has appeared for the petitioner, it is reasonable to presume that he is not interested in pursuing his cause. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 4715 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26.12.2006 ksld S.No. W.P. No. Corresponding W.P.No. in earlier litigation Date of order in W.P.M.P. ordering status quo Date of order in W.P. Date of interim order in WAMP in Writ Appeal Date of dismissal of W.A. 1) 17076/2000 5282 of 1993 23-4-93 3.6.94. 20.9.94 29.2.96 2) 17077/2000 5539 of 1993 28.4.93 -do- -do- -do- 3) 17078/2000 5327 of 1993 26.4.93 -do- -do- -do- 4) 17108/2000 5569 of 1993 28.4.93 -do- -do- -do- 5) 17109/2000 5540 of 1993 28.4.93 -do- -do- -do- 6) 17110/2000 6653 of 1993 19.5.93 25.3.96 No writ appeal --- The above recapitulation of facts and tabular statement of the orders passed in different cases makes it clear that on account of the interim orders of status quo passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the appellants, respondent No.2 could not undertake the exercise for passing award in respect of Ac.11-96 cts. The last order of status quo was passed on 19-5- 1993 in WPMP No.8430 of 1993 in Writ Petition No.6653 of 1993. That petition was finally dismissed on 25-3-1996 and the award was passed on 12-3-1998. Therefore, by virtue of the explanation appearing below Section 11A, the period during which the proceedings in furtherance of declaration made under Section 6 remained stayed is liable to be excluded in computing the period of two years specified in Section 11A. In Abhey Ram’s case (supra), a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question somewhat similar to the one raised in these appeals. The factual matrix of that case