JUDGMENT 1. - With consent, arguments heard. 1. An advertisement was issued on 04.08.2003 for filling up total 108 posts of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules of 1955) for male and female candidates of general and reserved categories, separately. Out of the aforesaid total number of posts 108 advertised, 89 posts were kept for general category and 19 for SC and ST. The last date of submission of the application forms was fixed as 15.09.2003. 2. All the petitioners, pursuant to the said advertisement, submitted their forms. A written examination was held and results were declared in the year 2004 itself. The petitioners were not successful in the said examination; thereafter the process of selection continued. 3. After having failed to successfully complete in the said examination, they have filed this writ petition challenging the Schedule appended to the Rules being contrary to the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1955, on variety of grounds. 4. On show cause notice being issued, respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, all of them filed their separate replies denying the allegations as levelled in the writ petition. They all have said in one voice that the petitioners have waken up from their slumber only on being declared unsuccessful in the written examination, in which they had appeared. They have also contended that the said Rule is in existence for decades and they never challenged the same before applying to the post. They have, therefore, contended that the writ petition has been filed with mala-fide intentions. 5. It has also been contended that subsequent to the Notification issued in the year 2003, fresh Notifications for filling-up subsequent posts were also issued in the year 2005 and 2008. In all probabilities, the petitioners must have appeared in the subsequent examinations. 6. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that this writ petition has virtually been rendered in fructuous, and in any case it is not a fit case where we would like to examine the constitutional validity of the Schedule, as challenged by the petitioners, as it has been rendered only of academic interest. 6. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that this writ petition has virtually been rendered in fructuous, and in any case it is not a fit case where we would like to examine the constitutional validity of the Schedule, as challenged by the petitioners, as it has been rendered only of academic interest. However, we keep that right open to the petitioners to take up in an appropriate case, but as far as merit of the case is concerned, we find no substance and it is hereby dismissed.Parties to bear their own costs. 7. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed *******