JUDGMENT
A.L. Dave, J.
1. The petitioners are the selectees of a select-list prepared in November, 1986 for the posts of Primary Teachers for the district of Ahmedabad. Before they could be appointed, a decision was taken to prepare a new select-list to start with the procedure of recruitment once again. It appears that they, therefore, made a representation before the respondent-authorities, who in turn, decided not to accept the request for continuing the select-list of November, 1986. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
(A) writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2.4.88 at Ann. B and the resolution No. 34 dated 27.4.88 at Ann. C passed by the 2nd respondent.
(B) a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondent No. 3, their agents and servants to make the recruitment of 150 primary teachers from the select list prepared in May, 1986 wherein 272 persons are in the waiting list.
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the operation and implementation of the resolution No. 34 dated 27.4.88 at Ann. C passed by the 2nd respondent may kindly be stayed and the respondents, their agents and servants be restrained from giving any public advertisement for preparation of the fresh select list for the recruitment of 1988-89.
(D) Any other order that may be deemed fit in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.
(E) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded.
2. This Court, while admitting the petition vide order dated 15th July, 1988 granted interim relief directing the respondents to operate the old select list of November, 1986 in view of the fact that the new list was not till then finalized. The Court also observed that in view of the language used in Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers) Rules, 1970, it has to be held that the old list cannot be said to have lapsed. The Court then observed that there were about 149 vacancies for the old list and there were more than 200 vacancies for the new list, and that the total number of candidates, who were not given appointments pursuant to the old list of 1986, which was operating till the date of order, were 272.
3. The matter has been pending since then. A liberty reserved by the Court to the respondents has not been utilized by the respondents. We are in the year 2008 i.e., nearly 20 years have elapsed since passing of the interim order. Learned advocate Mr. Vakharia states that petitioner No. 3 has expired in 1997 and none of the petitioners has made any grievance till today, after the order was passed. In that view of the matter, a necessary inference can be drawn that the petition has become infructuous.
4. The petition, therefore, stands disposed of, without disturbing the situation arising due to the interim relief granted earlier. The interim relief, however, now stands vacated. Liberty is reserved to the parties to approach this Court for revival in case of difficulty. The petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. No orders as to costs.