{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPL. APPEAL (WRIT) NO.661/2010 DEENA RAM & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date of Judgment : 10.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. A.K. Choudhary, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of writ petition no 5203 of 2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dt 4.10.2010 passed by single judge in aforesaid writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that it has rendered infructuous. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether single judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition as having rendered infructuous. 4. The appellants filed the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arises challenging the legality of { 2 } one notification No. 1 of 2009 including one amendment made therein on 19.2.2010 and consequent action taken pursuant thereto for selection of teachers in the school run by Madersa Board. 5. During pendency of this writ petition, the State withdrew the impugned notification and in consequence cancelled the selection process. This fact was brought to the notice of writ court by learned counsel appearing for the State. It was accordingly taken note of by the writ court and on this basis; the impugned order was passed dismissing the writ petition as having rendered infructuous which has given rise to filing of this intra court appeal by the writ petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to concur with reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge. 7. This is what the learned single judge held while dismissing the writ petition. “ 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that original Notification No.1/2009, the amendment to which on 19/2/2010 has been challenged in the present writ petition, itself has been withdrawn by the State Government and with its withdrawal the selection process for teachers for teaching in the school run by Madersa Board has { 3 } been cancelled. 3. He also drew the attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in SBCWP No.4418/2010 (Sunil Kumar Dhaka & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) dismissing similar writ petitions as having become infructuous with the withdrawal of Notification No.1/2009 dated 23/10/2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Choudhary submits that such withdrawal of Notification No.1/2009 is with oblique motive and respondent State wants to recruit only such candidates, who have knowledge of “Urdu” Language also, whereas, initially in pursuance of Notification No.1/2009 the respondent State had prepared the separate merit list for the class of candidates having no knowledge of “Urdu” in which present petitioner stood. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that with the withdrawal of original Notification No.1/2009, the subsequent amendment thereto, which was challenged in the present writ petition, itself goes and the selection process has been cancelled by the State Government, therefore, the very cause of action to the petitioner does not survive. No oblique motive can be inferred in such withdrawal of the initial Notification No.1/2009. { 4 } 6. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition has also become infructuous and same is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.” 8. Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the learned single judge was right in his reasoning. When the original cause of action for which the writ petition was filed has come to an end then in such eventuality, there remains nothing for the court to adjudicate on a issue which is not alive. It was not disputed that the challenge was to a particular notification and the same was withdrawn by the state during pendency of the writ petition. It was also not disputed that a consequential action taken pursuant to impugned notification was also cancelled. In the light of these two undisputed facts, we are unable to appreciate as to why and on what basis and for which reason, the writ petitioners (appellants) are still considering to be an aggrieved party. It is a settled principal of law that courts do not decide the issue which have become stale, or academic or when they no longer subsists. 9. In this case, this principal applies in full force because the impugned notification so also action taken pursuant thereto is not being given effect to by the State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants vemently argued that the observation made by the learned single judge that “no oblique motive can be inferred in such withdrawal of notification” is uncalled for. We find no merit in this { 5 } submission. These passing remarks even if made by learned single judge do not in any way cause any prejudice to the writ petitioners. Their main grievance having come to an end, nothing really survived in the writ petition for adjudication on its merits. 11. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this intra court appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limini. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/