HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 806 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. 2. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against an order of learned Single Judge dated 27.05.2025 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants herein bearing No. 50492 of 2008 for quashing of an advertisement dated 28.08.2008 issued by the respondent-university for engaging employees on various posts and for direction to permit the petitioners to continue working on the post on which they have been working and for payment of arrears of salary since January, 2008 to April, 2008 has been disposed of with the following directions: "6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. As prayer nos. (i) and (ii) become infructuous and as far as prayer no. (iii) is concerned, the petitioners are permitted to move a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today along with all relevant materials including appointment letter and payment particulars which were made by the respondents to the petitioners since 2006 to 2008. On receipt of such representation, respondent no.2 may consider the same and take appropriate decision for release of arrears, within a period of two months thereafter. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." 3. Learned Single Judge has rightly noted in the order that the petitioners have allegedly worked only for a short period and there was no interim order staying the advertisement. Consequently, the relief claimed for quashing the advertisement issued way back in the year 2008, has been rendered infructuous with passage of time. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has also rightly permitted the petitioners to represent along Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gopal Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashi Prakash Rai Ravi Kant (Peon) And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) Kul Sachiv, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth Varanasi And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) with relevant evidence in respect of arrears of salary, with further direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the same within next two months. 4. Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that relief nos. (i) & (ii) have become infructuous. He further submits that said issues should have been decided to arrive at a conclusion as to whether dispensation of service of the petitioners was illegal or not. 5. The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioners were not appointed through any advertisement nor were ever appointed by the Executive Council. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that it would be a futile exercise to examine the action of the respondents in engaging employees through the impugned advertisement dated 28.08.2008 as there was no interim order and the petitioners are admittedly not working in the respondent-college since the said time. It is not disputed that the appointments were duly made in pursuance of the advertisement and the persons appointed in pursuance of the advertisement were not party to the writ-proceedings. 6. In case, petitioners have actually worked for any period for which salary has not been paid to them, learned Single Judge has rightly permitted the petitioners to make representation in this regard so that the claim is decided. 7. We find no illegality in the order of learned Single Judge to warrant interference, hence the present appeal stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 A. Mandhani SPLA No. 806 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad