WP(C) 613/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the deed of agreement dated 3.2.2004, in terms of which the respondent No.5 was appointe d as Engineer on contract basis under GMDA for a period of 5 (five) years. Accor ding to the petitioners, the authority in the GMDA ought not to have appointed t he respondent No.5 ignoring their cases for appointment as such. The petitioners have also expressed their apprehension that on the basis of such contractual ap pointment of the respondent No.5, his service is likely to be regularized in due course. Both the official and private respondents have filed their counter affid avit denying the apprehension expressed by the petitioners. In the counter affid avit filed by the respondent NO.5, it has been stated that he was appointed in c onsideration of his candidature and pursuant to the evaluation made by the autho rities in the GMDA. The official respondents have also stated in their counter a ffidavit that the appointment of the respondent No.5 on contract basis was made in the interest of the services of GMDA. It has been stated that such appointmen t was made to cope up with the work load. The respondent No.5 has filed an additional affidavit on 11.5.2011 bring ing on record the fact that in the mean time the services of the petitioner No.6 Shri Jadav Goswami in the GMDA has been regularized by way of absorption. Be it stated here that the said petitioner No.6 was on deputation to GMDA. In this co nnection, the respondent No.5 has also annexed the copy of the order dated 13.3. 2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4985/2006 filed by said Shri Jadav Goswam i, on which the prayer made was for consideration of his case for absorption in the GMDA. Referring to the aforesaid case of the petitioner No.6, the respondent N o.5 has stated that in one hand the petitioners are trying to get service benefi ts in GMDA but on the other hand are opposing the appointment and continuation o f service of the respondent No.5. Another aspect of the matter on which Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior coun sel for the respondent No.5 has highlighted is that the earlier term of agreemen t which was for five years has already been expired and that now the services of the respondent No.5 is being continued on year to year basis with execution of agreements every year. Thus, according to him, the impugned agreement having alr eady spent its force, the writ petition has become infructuous, more so, when t here is no challenge to the subsequent agreement operating to the services of th e respondent No.5. Considering the matter in its entirety, I dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the GMDA to deal with the matter appropriately strictly in a ccordance with law and by way of consideration of the cases of all eligible Offi cers including that of the respondent No. 5. Interim order dated 15.2.2006 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.