JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Public Interest Litigation, in which it has been prayed that the appointments of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Administrators of Municipal Council, Jaipur vide Annexures-1 and 2 dated 25.1.1987 and dated 15.5.1989 respectively, are illegal since the notifications of their appointments Annexures-3 & 4 dated 31.8.89 & dated 30.11.89 respectively were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 293-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Act, 1959') in as much as no period for their appointment as Administrator was mentioned. 2. It is submitted by Shri Kaushik, learned counsel that it has been held by this Court in case of Municipal Board, Begun & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. ( 1989 (2) RLR 130 ) that the provisions of Section 293-A of the Act, 1959 are mandatory and it is necessary for the State to mention period of appointment as Administrator in such notification. It is also submitted that in absence of mention of any period in notification regarding appointment of Administrator of any Municipal Council, the notification is illegal and invalid. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that this provision has been further amended by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1989. The amendment has been made in sub-section (1) of Section 293-A of the Act, 1959 in which it has been mentioned that after the words "such appointment" and before the punctuation mark, the expression 'so, however, the total period of appointment including that of extension shall not exceed 6 months' shall be inserted. It is, therefore, pointed out that according to the amended sub-section (1) of Section 293-A of the Act, 1959 now an Administrator cannot be appointed for a period of more than 6 months. 3. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that in the earlier two notifications Annexures 3 & 4 even as the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 293-A stood un-amended, admittedly no period of appointment was mentioned therein, therefore, these notifications were illegal and invalid. It is also contended that as a consequence thereof all the acts and functions performed by the said Administrators during their holding the office of Administrator, were illegal and invalid. 4. It is also contended that as a consequence thereof all the acts and functions performed by the said Administrators during their holding the office of Administrator, were illegal and invalid. 4. It is submitted by Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel that this error has been corrected by the Government of Rajasthan, as is evident from Annexure-R-2/1 dated 10th January, 1990 were in it has been mentioned that the appointment of Shri N.S. Bhandari, respondent No. 4 shall be for a period of one year. It is evident that even this notification is not in accordance with the amended provision of subsection (I) of Section 293-A of the Act, 1959 which provides that the Administrator can be appointed only up-till period of 6 months. It is also submitted by learned counsel that respondents No. 3 and 4 are no more holding the post of Administrator of Municipal Counsel, Jaipur and therefore, it will be only of academic interest to quash these notifications. It is further submitted that new Administrator has already been taken the place of respondent No. 4, and the petition has become infructuous. 5. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is evident that respondents No. 3 and 4 are no more holding the post of Administrator in Municipal Council, Jaipur, therefore, it will be only of academic interest to quash the notifications by which they were appointed. However, it must be said that the petitioner by way of this public interest litigation has achieved the object of emphasising that the appointments and the orders of the Government are in accordance with law as enacted by the Legislature. 6. However, it is surprising that even though the amended provision of 293-A of the Act, 1959, as already stated above, provides that the appointment of an Administrator can be made only for a period of 6 months, still the notification Annexure-R-2/1 dated 10.1.1990 was issued providing that the appointment is made for a period of one year. This does cause reflection of careless and negligent working of the State Government in this respect. 7. In this view of the matter, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any such orders which may cause any inconvenience or harassment to public at large since this petition has itself been filed in public interest with a view to serve the law and see that the rule of law prevails. 7. In this view of the matter, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any such orders which may cause any inconvenience or harassment to public at large since this petition has itself been filed in public interest with a view to serve the law and see that the rule of law prevails. I, therefore, do not find it necessary to pass any orders regarding impugned notifications Annexures-3 & 4 since respondents No. 3 and 4 are no more working as Administrators. 8. With this observation the petition stands disposed of as above.Petition disposed of. *******