@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Vineet Kothari, J.@mdashNone appears for the petitioner, though the name of Mr. Sanjay Mathur is shown in the cause list.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that:
(A) a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing them to consider the candidature of the petitioner first for promotion as Deputy Director (Personnel) on the basis of seniority and in presence of the petitioner, the promotion of respondents No. 4 to 8 on the post of Deputy Director, Personnel made vide order Annex. 21 dated 23.6.1998 may kindly be quashed and the respondents may be directed to consider and promote the petitioner as Deputy Director Personnel from 17.6.1997 when the initial promotions were made by the respondents No. 1 to 3 ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as Personnel Officer;
(B) by an appropriate writ, order or direction Annex. 22 and Annex. 23 may not be given effect by the respondents while making the promotion as they have not published it in the Official Gazette which is the requirement of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948;
(C) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, so called final seniority list annex. 18 dated 6.6.1998 which is in gross violation of the Rules and Regulations, 1976 and the principle of natural justice may also not be given effect to while considering the promotion of Personnel Officer on the post of Deputy Director, Personnel. The proceedings of the DPC which has recommended for promotion of the respondents No. 4 to 7 on the basis of wrong seniority list may also be quashed and set aside;
(D) the promotions of the respondents No. 4 to 8 who are still undergoing probation as Personnel Officer vide Annex. 17 may also be quashed and set aside as the person undergoing probation cannot be promoted on higher post before completion of probation on the lower post.
(E) the petitioner may also be considered for promotion as Deputy Director, Personnel and may also be given all consequential benefits eligible for the post of Deputy Director, Personnel.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Manoj Bhandari submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Dy. Director (Personnel) in the respondent-RSEB. The same was a selection post and therefore, the seniority from the back date cannot be reckoned. He also submitted that the petitioner has now since retired and has been paid the retiral benefits. Therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous.
4. No body appears on behalf of the petitioner to controvert this statement.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.
