IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 803 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 28, 2009 Sushil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Anurag Rastogi, Director, Secondary Education, Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on October 20, 2008, whereby the respondents were directed to take a final decision by passing a speaking order on the legal notice dated 28.7.2008 submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not pass any order on his legal notice dated 28.7.2008 and, thus, failed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court on 20.10.2008. He, thus, filed the present petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. C.O.C.P. No. 803 of 2009 -2- Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 today in the Court is taken on record and a copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 2 of the reply, it stands mentioned that respondent No.1 had directed the District Education Officer, Yamunanagar, being the appointing authority of the petitioner, to consider the legal notice submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision on the same without any delay. Lateron, District Education Officer, Yamunanagar, informed respondent No.1 that the legal notice submitted by the petitioner stood considered and the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Hindi Teacher rejected, he being lower in merit. Copy of the order passed by District Education Officer, Yamuanangar, on 22.5.2009, while rejecting the legal notice of the petitioner has been appended with the reply as Annexure R-1. In view of the fact that the legal notice submitted by the petitioner has since been considered and decided by the competent authority, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure R-1), he would be at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law. ( T.P.S.MANN ) May 28, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1