-» ^-\We\r~/ r t BEFO&E TKE HIGH COUET-bP CPliArTISGftRH,A?_B_IIASPUR. W .P . No . '3-6 6^. /2Q03 . PETITIONER Jitendra la-imar Shukla, aged about 35 years, ^/o C.H.ShuklE, r/o Purani Basti (Kohoka'), P.0. Supela, Distt. Durg, C .G. . v sa su s &ESEONDENTS ^ ^y -^s:^ .^^s's^""" .?>-^>^^"" ^y^ -• '^8& 1. State o£ Chbattisgarh,_through Secretary, Research & Emplovineint I-iantralaya, D.K.S. Bbswan, Raipur, L.P.O. & Distt. Raipur. G.G. 2. Ihe Cotnird.ssioner, Disabled Persons, State of Chhattisgarh (Disfcrict PaDChayat Building) G.E. Road, Durg'. 3. Ihe Secretary, State Public Service Comndission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipulfe*. .. FETITJON UNDER_Aa.TICLE__226/22'7 OF^I'HE CCNSTI'.TUIION OF INDIA FOR ISSU&NCB OF A WRIT OF C ERTIORAR'.!: AND KnNDAMUS AND ANY »1 tiil! l^ •f .0 0'.]5 _WRII^:iKECTK,N/pRDER tt-s :]1^^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petitton No. 3662 of 2003 Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Shukla Versus Respondents Stateof CIihatdsgarh& others WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sin^le Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agaihotri, J. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri. P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDERtOrall (Passed on this 18th day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. By ttus petition fhe petitiouer has questioned fhe provisions of reseryation in fhe selection process to the disabled person, iaitiated pursuaat to fhe advertisemeiitdated 4.7.2003 (Amiexure p/1). v 2. The petitioner has not applied pursuaat to fhe advertisement. The selection process has already been coinplete aud fhe appointnients have beeii inade. It is weU setfled that the question of law caanot be decided for waut of availabitily of inaterials on facts. After lapse of about seven years this petitiou has beconie iafructuous. 3. It is well setded that if a case has becoiae iofi-uctuous on fhe facts of the case aad question remaias to be decided for academic puipose, it is not necessary to examiae the case. ( See Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioaer of Income-tax, Delhl and Rajasthan and another1, Dhartipakar -Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rsfflv ' {A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149} —~f p ^ litf- ey ,,; II'IU Thakur Gaadhl2, Secretary, Mfailstry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of ladla aad others Vs. Cricket Associatloa of Bengal and others3, State of Manipur aad others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4, Arnlt Das Vs. State of Bihar5, Prakash Sitigh Badal and anothet Vs. State of Punjab and others6). 4. The question of law on acadeinic iaterest camiot be adjudicated upon and the same should be left open for adjudication, whenever fhe appropriate facts anse. The petitioner has uot fumished auy inaterial on record, poiating out discrmunation, arbita-armess, warranttag interference. In normal course, fhe petitioner has no iadefeasible right to appointment even after his selection and in the case on haad even the petitioner had not appUed puisuant to fhe adverdseinent. 5. In view of fhe above this petition is dismissed as having become infiructuous. No order asto costs. » cji \' so/- Satish K. Agiiiliotri Judge 2 { 1987 (Supp) S.C.C. 93} 3 {(1995) 2 SCC 161} 4 {(1999) 7 SCC 503} 5 {(2001) 7 SCC 657} 6 {(2007) 1 SCC 1}