JUDGMENT By the Court—The appeal from the interim order dated 24th of May, 2005 is summarily disposed of. 2. The appellants before us, who were the materially affected private respondents in the writ, had been given ad hoc appointments as routine grade clerks and that was the grievance of the writ petitioner. 3. In the impugned interim order the Hon’ble Single Judge laid down that even powers under Article 229 are to be exercised by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice fairly and reasonably. Mr. Pandey for the appellants submits that the position might need re-examination in view of the case reported at (2006)1 S.C.C. 779 , Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another, and he placed passages, specifically, paragraph 14 thereof. 4. His Lordship also ordered that the ad hoc appointments would not be regularised, or confirmed, until disposal of the writ petition, unless the appellants-private respondents “appear and are selected in the examination/test which has been advertised.” 5. Several developments have taken place which appear to have rendered the writ petition infructuous or out of date now. The writ petitioner-respondent submits before us that the mandamus prayer in the writ petition permitting him to appear in the examination has become infructuous, but according to him the other prayers are still alive. We have our doubts in this regard also. 6. By a proclamation dated the 6th of December, 2005 the then learned Registrar General has cancelled the advertisement No. 03-2004, which was at the root of the interim order in operation which is the impugned order before us. 7. As such, it is declared that the impugned interim order has become unworkable because of the changed circumstances and as on date all parties are free to proceed in accordance with law and no workable restraint can be spelt out from the interim order which ties down the hands of anybody to any extent at all. 8. Regarding the further progress of the matter the appellants submitted that the writ petition should not have been treated as heard in part on 19.7.2005, which was two months after the passing of the detailed order and on a date when the appellants, i.e., the affected parties had not been served. 8. Regarding the further progress of the matter the appellants submitted that the writ petition should not have been treated as heard in part on 19.7.2005, which was two months after the passing of the detailed order and on a date when the appellants, i.e., the affected parties had not been served. We are of the opinion that an Hon’ble Single Judge has discretion in the matter and the discretion can hardly be interfered with by anybody; we are also of the respectful opinion that in general matters are not treated as heard in part until at least all parties appear, or at least substantially all parties appear and more often than not the tying up of the case is ordered only after the pleadings are complete and the matter is ripe for final disposal, and is then heard for a sufficient length of time. 9. With these orders and observations, the appeal is finally disposed of. Order Accordingly. ———