K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) IN this petition petitioners seek to restrain the respondent from making appointments to the post of Junior Engineer of 17 persons who have been reverted back as Work Assistants after being provisionally promoted on the basis of the select panel of the year 1984: ( 2 ) IT is alleged that both the petitioners are diploma holders and have been working as Work Assistants (Electrical) with the respondent on work-charge basis since November 1, 1980 and September 23, 1981 respectively. They are eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect Mech ). the Post of Junior Engineer was previously known as Sectional Officer and Recruitment Rules as adopted by the respondent vide its resolution No. 574 dated November 13, 1963 provided for 100% direct recruitment Educational qualification required for the aforesaid post was diploma in Civil/elect. /mech. Engg. With two years experience or graduate in Civil/elect. /mecth Engg. It is alleged that in the year 1984 respondent held selection for appointments to the said the post About 600 candidates appeared for selection and the Selection Committee drew up a panel of 160 candidates from general category and 14 candidates from reserved category Letters of appointment were issued to about 60 candidates out of the select panel. Thereafter respondent chose not to make appointments on the basis of the select panel and wanted to promote departmental candidates instead. This action of the respondent was challenged in C. W. 225/85 which was allowed by this Court by the judgment dated April 19, 1985 holding that as the mode of recruitment prescribed in the Rules was direct recruitment and a panel had already been drawn the respondent cannot ignore the panel and the appointments to the said post are to be made strictly in accordance with the select panel as long as it subsists. It is stated that again in the year 1985 it was felt that the departmental candidates working as Work Assistants were being made to suffer in view of the existing Recruitment Rules and therefore, a proposal for amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Engineer was approved by the respondent vide its resolution No. 77 dated October 4, 1995. In the meanwhile, another candidate who was in the reserved category and had a grievance regarding non- implementation of the panel prepared in the year 1984, filed C. W. P. No. 2221/85 which was allowed and a post was ordered to be kept reserved for him. It was further held that as when Recruitment Rules are Changed and the respondent wants to take the stand that it is open to it to fill up the vacancies otherwise than the direction given in the writ petition it must seek the prior permission of the Court. It is stated that pursuant to the liberty which had been granted in the aforesaid petition an application was filed on behalf of the respondent and by the order dated October 13, 1988, the application was disposed of permitting the respondent to make appointments to the aforesaid post according to the amended Recruitment Rules It is further alleged that out of the select panel of 1984 respondent promoted 17 persons as Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) and on contempt petition being filed by the aggrieved persons the respondent had to ultimately Withdraw their promotions and to revert them back to their original posts. It is pleaded that on their reversion 17 affected persons filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed at the show-cause stage itself by this Court. Again same 17 persons are sought to be appointed as Junior Engineers ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. Actions of the respondent in promoting these 17 persons to the post of Junior Engineer. (Elect. / Mech) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and malafide. ( 3 ) IN response to the show-case notice respondent has filed reply on the affidavit of Janak Juneja, Secretary. It is, inter alia, alleged that 18 Work Assistants, whose name figured in the select panel of 1984, were appointed as Junior Engineer (Elect. and Mech.) However, on two writ petitions being filed challenging their appointments the respondent decided to revert them with effect from September 25, 1985 and they were actually reverted back to the post of Work Assistants in November 1985. Out of the said 18 work Assistants one has died. After the amendment of the Recruitment Rules the department recommended the names of aforesaid 17 persons against the available vacancies of Junior Engineer (Elect. Out of the said 18 work Assistants one has died. After the amendment of the Recruitment Rules the department recommended the names of aforesaid 17 persons against the available vacancies of Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) and that recommendation was approved by Member Engineer on January 2, 1989 and Vice Chairman on January 6, 1989. However, before any further action could be taken in the matter stay order was served on the respondent and for that reason appointment letters to said 17 persons could not be issued. It is asserted that the decision of the Competent Authority in appointing 17 persons to the aforesaid postis perfectly legal. ( 4 ) THIS petition was taken up for hearing alongwith C. W. 3266/89, Krishan Pal Singh Fomar and Another Vs Delhi Development Authority and Others. ( 5 ) WE heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken through the record. ( 6 ) ONE of the submissions advanced before us was that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the order dated March 8, 1989, passed in C. M. 57/89 in the case. Relevant portion of this order runs as under: "the counter-affidavit filed by the Authority makes no secret that 17 Work Assistants who had qualified in the interview of 1984 and their names appeared in the panel are being considered for appointment in the vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech. ). It is also not disputed that the panel prepared in the year 1984 has lapsed and the recruitment rules were amended on October 4, 1985. The amended recruitment rules lay down the method of recruitment. "by appointment of departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualification and experience or direct recruitment. " The 17 persons who were selected and their names included in the panel of 1984 may have some preferential claim but the method of recruitment is by appointment of departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualification and experience. The comparative merit of 17 persons has to be assessed by considering the claim of other eligible departmental candidates who possess requisite qualifications and experience, this obviously has hot been done. The Authority has also not taken into consideration whether there is any deterioration in the merit of those 17 persons of 1984 or whether there is an appreciation in the merit of the other departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualifications and experience. The Authority has also not taken into consideration whether there is any deterioration in the merit of those 17 persons of 1984 or whether there is an appreciation in the merit of the other departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualifications and experience. We therefore, direct by way of an interim relief if any appointment is to be made to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect. / Mech. ). Then it must be made in accordance with the existing recruitment rules by considering the claim of all departmental candidates who possess the requisite qualification and experience restrain the Authority from making any appointment except in accordance with the existing Recruitment Rules. " ( 7 ) INDISPUTABLY 23 departmental candidates were selected for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Elect. /mech.) pursuant to the interview held after the passing of the aforementioned order on October 20, 1989 by the respondent. Out of the 23 selected persons, 10 could not join because of the operation of the order passed on November 20, 1989 in C. M. 4972/89 by this Court. Obviously, in view of the aforesaid interim order dated March 28, 1989 and subsequent selection of 23 departmental candidates pursuant to the interview held on October 20, 1989 and the judgment delivered today in C. W. 3266/89 this petition has been rendered infructuous and is therefore, dismissed as such without any order as to cost.