- (1.) The earlier appointment of the petitioners were set aside on the ground that no public advertisement of the vacancies was made. The setting aside was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court while parting with the case observed that the cases of the petitioners may be considered by granting age relaxation in future appointments, in view of the fact that they had served for about 14 years pursuant to their illegal appointments.
(2.) The petitioners filed this writ petition on the apprehension that the respondent State was not going to consider the cases of the petitioners. A counter-affidavit has been filed enclosing therewith a letter sent by the State to all the petitioners informing them that shortly in future, vacancies were going to be advertised and if the petitioners wished they could also apply and their cases would be considered ignoring the age bar. Thus now there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the cause of action does not survive at present.
(3.) It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid letter was sent to the petitioners in the month of February, 2009. If the vacancies have not been advertised and are also not advertised within the next three months, or if any of the petitioners applies pursuant to the advertisement of vacancies and his candidature is not considered, it will be open to the said petitioner to file a fresh petition.;