JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 24.8.2012, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 20.4.2012, stating that the petitioner had not furnished the relevant particulars regarding the candidates, who are junior to the petitioner and whose names had been forwarded by the employment exchange concerned. 3. Even though petitions have been filed before this court for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and for impleading some of the candidates, as respondents in the writ petition, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous in view of the subsequent event of the respondent issuing the proceedings, dated 24.8.2012, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Mandamus to dispose of the representation, dated 20.4.2012, has become infructuous. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 24.8.2012, independently, before the appropriate forum or authority, raising all the issues available to the petitioner, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.