JUDGMENT J.S. KHEHAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner along with five other candidates belonging to the general category approached this Court by filing CWP No.687 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents for allowing them promotion to the post of Officer scale I. During the course of the proceedings of the aforesaid writ petition, written statement was filed, wherein the respondent-bank accepted to promote five of the petitioners in CWP No.687 of 2004 against general category vacancies available with the respondent-bank. However, since no further general category posts were available, the respondent-bank in its written statement clarified that as and when an additional vacancy becomes available on account of dereservation of the posts allotted for Scheduled caste candidates, the claim of the petitioner will be considered and he will be promoted against the post. 2. The petitioner filed a second writ petition bearing No.5707 of 2005 claiming that the respondent had not taken any final decision on the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Officer scale I. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereon. In furtherance of the direction issued by this Court in CWP No.5707 of 2005, the respondent has passed an order dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure P9), through which the petitioner was informed, that the process of de-reservation was being pursued not only by the authority who had taken the decision under reference, but also by the sponsor bank. The petitioner was also requested to bear with the respondent for some more time, and that, as an when an effective decision was taken by the competent authority, for de- reservation of the posts ear-marked for reserved category candidates, the claim of the petitioner for promotion would be taken up without any further loss of time. 3. Despite the order dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure P9), the petitioner has yet again approached this Court by filing a third writ petition. 4. Having examined the content of the impugned order dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure P9), we are satisfied that the petitioner has unnecessarily approached this Court in haste. All what can be done for him is being done at the hands of the respondent. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no justification in taking any further action in furtherance of the instant writ petition. All what can be done for him is being done at the hands of the respondent. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no justification in taking any further action in furtherance of the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of with no further orders. -