JUDGMENT 1. - These three special appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20.12.89, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in part and up-held the selection and appointment of respondents No. 2 to 10 and 12 to 15 made on the post of Assistant Registrar but he, however, quashed and set-aside the selection and appointment of the respondents No. 11 Mr. A.L. Sehlot on the post of the Assistant Registrar. The learned Single Judge, also, observed that the petitioner is, however, not entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Registrar because his candidature has been rejected by the Selection Committee and, therefore, no relief regarding his appointment on the post in question can be granted to him. 2. The petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 14, in pursuance to the Notification dated 1.10.82, issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Assistant Registrar, applied for the same. The petitioner and the respondents No. 2 to 14 and other eligible candidates were called for interview. The name of H.K. Purohit was not forwarded by the Selection Committee for appointment while the names of the respondents No. 2 to 14 were recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment on the post in question and the University gave appointments to the respondents No. 2 to 14 as well as to Mr. A.L. Sehlot-the appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 91 of 1990. Aggrieved with his non-selection and the selection of the respondents No. 2 to 14 and Shri A.L. Sehlot, H.K. Purohit filed the writ petition before this Court and the same was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated December 20,1989, as stated above. It is against this judgment that these three appeals have been preferred - one by Shri H.K. Purohit, the second by the University and the third by Shri A.L. Sehlot, whose appointment has been cancelled by the learned Single Judge. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Mr. It is against this judgment that these three appeals have been preferred - one by Shri H.K. Purohit, the second by the University and the third by Shri A.L. Sehlot, whose appointment has been cancelled by the learned Single Judge. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Mr. A.L. Sehlot and of University submitted that the appeal filed by Shri H.K. Purohit as well as the appeal filed by the University, both, have become infructuous because Shri H.K. Purohit has already crossed the age of superannuation and, therefore, even if his appeal is allowed, he cannot be given any appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar because he has already crossed the age of sixty years, which is the age of superannuation in the University's Service Rules. He has, however, submitted that Shri A.L. Sehlot was selected on the post of Deputy Registrar vide order dated 5.4.87 (Annexure-A) by direct recruitment and, he, therefore, does not want to press the appeal filed by him. Mr. H.K. . Purohit, who appeared in person, submits that though he has attained the age of superannuation and no appointment can be given to him, now, but the point involved in the writ petition as well as in the appeal requires adjudication by this Court because an illegal procedure has been adopted while giving appointments to the respondents. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Appellant H.K. Purohit has already crossed the age of sixty years and, therefore, he cannot, now, be given appointment. His Date of Birth is 7.3.1932 and he completed I the age of sixty years on 6.3.92. As Shri H.K. Purohit has already crossed the age of superannuation prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, as such even if his appeal is allowed, he cannot be given appointment and the consideration of his case on merit will be only academic in nature and no useful purpose will be served in deciding the appeals, filed by H.K. Purohit and the University, on merit as both these appeals have become infructuous. 6. 6. In the result, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 64 of 1990 (H.K. Purohit v. University of Udaipur and Ors.) filed by H.K. Purohit as well as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 90 of 1990 (M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur v. Shri H.K. Purohit and Ors.) filed by the University, are dismissed as having become infructuous. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 91 of 1990 (A.L. Sehlot v. Shri H.K. Purohit and Anr.) filed by Mr. A.L. Sehlot is dismissed as not pressed by his learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal rejected. *******