B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. R. Sanku, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) PETITIONER herein, who has been working as Lecturer at the relevant point of time at Hanumakonda, Warangal District, files this Writ Petition, inter alia, for mandamus seeking for implementation of reservation to the Physically Handicapped candidates in respect of lecturers, Readers and Professors in terms of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner in short is that though the respondent-University had issued three notifications on three occasions i. e. , on 24-2-1992,12-7-1993 and 25-3-1996 and the same were cancelled in spite of the fact that the petitioner did make an application in terms thereof. Ultimately, a fresh notification was issued on 25th March 1996, to which the petitioner made an application as the petitioner also happened to be a physically handicapped person having suffered with polio. Further, it is also his case that he is fully qualified and therefore, he is entitled to promotion as reader in Economics. Even though the petitioner also appeared for the interview, he was not selected and according to him in fact no reservation has been made to the physically handicapped candidates as provided for under the aforesaid Act. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the fact that no such reservation is provided to the petitioner and he has lost the opportunity, further action on the part of the University need not provide such a reservation, is also in the teeth of mandate as contemplated under the above said Act. It is seen from the docket that this writ Petition has been filed on Second september 1997 and the matter has been coming up on various occasions but could not proceed with and ultimately pursuant to the very pathetic letter written by the petitioner himself on 3-2-2005, the matter is directed to be posted and to-day the matter is being heard. However, it is now represented by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has in fact retired in the year 2001 itself. However, it is now represented by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has in fact retired in the year 2001 itself. In view of the same, though the petitioner has raised substantial question as to the very exigency to make a provision for reservation, in terms of the above said act and the inaction on the part of the university, all these questions become a mute questions and purely academic, no relief as such, can be granted at this late hour, especially when the petitioner has already retired form service. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to go into such questions in an appropriate case and also further observing that the University would certainly keep in view the provisions of the said Act and provide necessary opportunities to all the posts as provided therein. No costs.