JUDGMENT By the Court.—It appears that Km. Sunaina Devi was a regular student of High School studying in Mahatma Jotir Rao Phule Vidya Ashram Higher Secondary School, Kara Dham, Tehsil Sirathu, District - Kaushambi (hereinafter also referred to as the “institution in question”). The said Km. Sunaina Devi was allotted centre for the High School Examination, which was other than the institution in question. Thereupon, one Pooran Lal Sonkar, claiming himself to be father and guardian of Km. Sunaina Devi, filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9456 of 2007. 2. It is not disputed that the said Km. Sunaina Devi appeared in the High School Examination from the centre allotted to her and passed the examination. 3. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.4.2007 and the order dated 6.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. 4. Case has been taken-up in the revised list. 5. Shri Jyoti Prakash Mishra holding brief for Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is present. Shri Sudhakar Yadav, who is also appearing as the learned counsel for the appellant is also present. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 is present. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that a Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007 (Sanjay Mohan v. State of U.P. and others) was filed against the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. By the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007, the said Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of the Division Bench in the Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007 is reported in 2008(2) ADJ 397 (DB). Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the Division Bench judgment in the said Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007 are reproduced below : “18. In these circumstances, we accept both the submissions of the appellant, namely, the petition had become infructuous once the daughter of the original petitioner had appeared at the examination from the centre that was allotted to her and secondly, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge after change of roster were without jurisdiction and are liable to be treated as null and void. 19. 19. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders dated 12.3.2007, 23.3.2007, 6.4.2007, 4.5.2007, 2.7.2007, 9.8.2007, 17.9.2007 and 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge and the petition is also disposed of as worked out. The registry will make necessary entry. 20. In the circumstances of the case, obviously there will not be any order as to costs.” 7. It will, thus, be noticed that the order dated 6.4.2007, which was passed by the learned Single Judge in continuation with the order dated 5.4.2007 in the aforesaid writ petition, which is impugned in the present Special Appeal, was set-aside by the Division Bench in the said Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007. The Division Bench further disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the writ petition had become infructuous once the said Km. Sunaina Devi had appeared in the examination from the centre that was allotted to her. 8. As the subject-matter of the present writ petition has already been considered by the Division Bench while deciding the said Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007, we dispose of the present Special Appeal with the same directions, as contained in the said judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench in the said Special Appeal No. 954 of 2007. ——————