IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 31 OF 2009 SMT. PRADNYA PRAVIN RAUT DESSAI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Mahesh Sonak, Advocat for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 6th May, 2009 P.C. Heard Advocate Sonak for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondents. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that as per the stand of respondents on affidavit, the entitlement of the petitioner to compete in selection process was inadvertently overlooked, as amendment to the policy decision effected on 8.7.92 was not looked into. Learned Advocate General states that as the petitioner is married to a person of Goa origin, she is legally entitled to participate in the selection process. 2. It is pointed out to us that having realised their error, the respondents have decided to recall the offers of appointment issued to two selected candidates and invite the petitioner for interview and then consider the entitlement of the petitioner along with those two candidates, afresh in accordance with law. Learned Advocate General has made statement accordingly before us. 3. In view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the statement made before us, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered independently, on merits and the challenge raised in the present petition is rendered academic atleast at this stage. We dispose of the writ petition as infructuous. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.