JUDGMENT By the Court—We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla on the 21st of August, 2006. 2. By that order the writ petition has simply been dismissed as infructuous. We note that the writ petitioner is not the appellant before us but the respondent No. 5 is the appellant. Strange though it might seem, the facts will explain this oddity. 3. The appellant and the writ petitioner are contesting amongst themselves for the post of the drug clerk. Although the district concerned is Agra, the appellant, who was respondent No. 5 in the Court below went before the Lucknow Bench alleging certain Government Orders to vest that Bench jurisdiction and obtained orders in a writ filed by him on the 10th of January, 2006 and the 19th of January, 2006. 4. Perhaps on the basis of these orders, although we do not wish to venture into guesswork, he succeeded in obtaining from the department a favourable order keeping him in the position of the drug clerk and that order is dated the 27th of February, 2006. 5. The writ petitioner now paid the respondent No. 5 back in his own coin. He approached the Allahabad Court and obtained an order dated the 13th of July, 2006 wherein the Court had called for an explanation why the departmental order dated 30.6.2006 was not being complied with. That departmental order of 30.6.2006 had in its turn helped the writ petitioner here, for posting as drug clerk. 6. After the Court order of 13.7.2006 was passed, the writ petitioner secured the position of the drug clerk. 7. However, in the meantime he has filed an affidavit in this Court in or about the month of August, 2006 wherein he gives an untrue, or at least a distorted picture of his knowledge of the departmental order of 27.2.2006 which had been passed in favour of his adversary (see page 69 of the paper book). He says that the order of February was not served upon him until then but in March, 2006 (page 88 of the paper book), he has made a representation against that order giving also specifically the order number. He says that the order of February was not served upon him until then but in March, 2006 (page 88 of the paper book), he has made a representation against that order giving also specifically the order number. There appears to be very little to choose between the two excepting may be the petitioner is the senior amongst the two and the respondent No. 5 has been in the position of the drug clerk for quite some time, according to the writ petitioner for 11 years and according to the appellant himself, for two years only. 8. The Court has, with respect, correctly refused to interfere in this matter as the writ petitioner could claim no more relief on the day the matter was disposed of, he having already been posted as drug clerk by that time. We are happy that we do not have to decide in favour either of the two parties. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———