( 1 ) THIS contempt petition had been filed by fifteen persons who claimed that the order of this Court dated 6/5/2003 had been violated. ( 2 ) IN that order this Court had reaffirmed an earlier decision dated 11/10/2001 in which it had been held that the persons who had been given interim appointment pending an appeal on the basis of rural weightage would not be entitled to so continue. In the concluding portion of the order dated 6/5/2003 we had also said: "as far as they (viz. those persons who had challenged the rural weightage rule) are concerned, if their case for appointment had not been considered only because otherwise unqualified candidates had been appointed by virtue of Rule 3 (B) and if as a result of the decision of this Court on 11/10/2001 any vacancies have been created in the year in which these writ petitioners had successfully qualified and been named in the merit list, they shall, against the vacancies so created, be entitled to be appointed in their turn and in accordance with the merit list. This exercise shall also be carried out within a period of eight weeks from date. However, we make it clear that if any of the writ petitioners is so appointed, his/her appointment will be taken from the date of the issuance of the order of the appointment. " ( 3 ) OUT of fifteen petitioners, fourteen, whose names were on the selection list, have been issued appointment letters in order of merit. The remaining applicant is Raju who is Petitioner 7 in the contempt petition. ( 4 ) RAJU was appointed as a police constable in 1975. He was sent on deputation in 1982 to the Police Printing Press where he still continues. ( 5 ) THE advertisement in question was issued in 1996. It inter alia required in-service candidates to have the following qualification: "in-SERVICE personnel in addition to degree must have put in a minimum service of five years in the cadre of ASI/hc/pc in respect of civil and ARSI/ahc/apc in respect of Armed Reserve Police. " ( 6 ) RAJU applied and was selected. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 6-5-2003 a merit list was prepared and his name was placed as the 13th successful candidate. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, according to Raju, he should have been appointed as the other petitioners were. " ( 6 ) RAJU applied and was selected. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 6-5-2003 a merit list was prepared and his name was placed as the 13th successful candidate. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, according to Raju, he should have been appointed as the other petitioners were. However, it has been stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Raju had himself filed proceedings before the Tribunal challenging an order whereby his repatriation had been ordered from the Police Printing Press to the mainstream on the ground that he was no longer a police constable but an employee of the Printing Press. It is, therefore, stated that since on Rajus own showing he was not a Police Constable he was not entitled to be selected as Sub-Inspector and, therefore, his name had been deleted from the merit list. ( 8 ) IN answer to this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Raju has submitted that while it was true that he had challenged the order of repatriation before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal the order of repatriation had been cancelled by the department itself. The department had also promoted him in the Printing Press and that the promotion was subsequently challenged by some candidates on the ground that he was a police constable and that he was, therefore, not permitted to be selected for promotion in the Printing Press. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal disposed of this application by holding that Raju was not in regular service of the Printing Press but that he continued to be a police constable. The State Government also filed an affidavit in those proceedings saying that Raju continued to be a police constable. Raju has, no doubt, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Tribunal. However, before this Court it is stated that he is no longer interested in pursuing that writ petition and he will accept the finding of the Tribunal that he continued as a member of the police cadre. He also undertakes to unconditionally withdraw the writ petition filed by him before the High Court challenging the decision of the Tribunal.