JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. A bureaucratic redatapism and unaccountable inaction can make a simple matter complicated besides causing undue and avoidable hardship, harassment and irreparable loss to a common man which can well be demonstrated by the facts of this case. 3. The brief admitted facts giving rise to the dispute are that the respondents proceeded with a process of recruitment for selection and appointment of Judo Trainer (part time) by holding a selection /trial on 24.5.2013 at K.D. Singh Babu Stadium Lucknow. The petitioner claiming himself to be well trained and qualified eligible candidate, applied for the said appointment vide application form dated 10.5.2013 and participated in the selection/trial on 24.5.2013. 4. The result of the above selection was not declared. The petitioner by an application dated 5.8.2013 requested the respondent competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2 to declare the result but having failed, he has come to this Court with a simple prayer to declare the result /selection list of adhoc part time trainer of Judo in pursuance of test held on 24.5.2013, conducted at K.D. Singh Babu Stadium Lucknow. 5. A notice of the above writ petition was served on 23.9.2013 in the office of Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondents. Initially, when the matter was taken up on 25.9.2013, the learned Standing Counsel sought three days time to seek instructions and inform the Court why result of above selection has not been declared. Permitting the same, the matter was taken up by this Court on 01.10.2013 when learned Standing Counsel informed that despite his communication to the respondents, none has responded and no instructions have been received. 6. In the circumstances, this Court directed respondents no. 2 and 3 to explain personally as to why result of the selection in question has not been declared so far and the matter was posted for 21.10.2013 7. On the date fixed i.e. 21.10.2013 respondent no. 3 did not appear and instead, an affidavit was filed by one Sri Vijay Kumar, Regional Sports Officer, Allahabad Division, Allahabad stating that respondent no. 2 i.e. Sri Sailesh Kumar Singh, holding office of Director of Sports is medically unfit to walk, as advised by Dr. On the date fixed i.e. 21.10.2013 respondent no. 3 did not appear and instead, an affidavit was filed by one Sri Vijay Kumar, Regional Sports Officer, Allahabad Division, Allahabad stating that respondent no. 2 i.e. Sri Sailesh Kumar Singh, holding office of Director of Sports is medically unfit to walk, as advised by Dr. D.K. Vatsal, Senior Consultant Neuro Surgeon, ICON Hospital, Sahara State Road, Sector-F, Jankipuram, Lucknow, a private medical practitioner and therefore, is not able to come to Court. However, he did not dispute that respondent no. 2 is not on medical leave and, instead, he is continuously discharging his official duties, at least on record. Looking to the two divergent and inconsistent state of affairs, this court directed that the medical condition of respondent no. 2 be examined by a Medical Board constituted by Head of Department, King George Medical University and it shall be submitted before the Court. The matter was fixed for 6.11.2013. 8. He (respondent no. 2) did not get examined himself from the Medical Board as directed above, and instead personally appeared before this Court today i.e. 6.11.2013 stating that he has already informed Principal Secretary Sports and Youth Welfare, U.P. Government that due to his orthopedic sickness, he cannot effectively discharge duties, functioning or traveling, and, therefore, he is performing official work from his camp office, is at his residence. He, however, admits that he has never applied for any medical leave, complaining about his above sickness, making him incapable of discharging duties by attending office in regular week. 9. Besides, on merit, it was informed that after the above selection, a complaint was made on 25.3.2013 about some corrupt practices in the above selection and hence it was decided by respondent no. 2 to make an inquiry in the matter and for that purpose, a committee was constituted by order dated 26.8.2013. However, the complainant himself did not respond to give statement before the aforesaid committee, as a result whereof the inquiry was delayed. 10. Lastly, the committee submitted an interim report, recommending finalization of the selection with a condition that in case nothing is found in the inquiry and any candidate is found guilty, then appropriate action would be taken. On the said report, respondent no. 2 passed an order releasing the list of the selected candidates publishing it on 17.10.2013. 10. Lastly, the committee submitted an interim report, recommending finalization of the selection with a condition that in case nothing is found in the inquiry and any candidate is found guilty, then appropriate action would be taken. On the said report, respondent no. 2 passed an order releasing the list of the selected candidates publishing it on 17.10.2013. A copy of the letter dated 17.10.2013 has been appended as annexed no. 4 to the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. It is stated that he also explained that earlier instructions could not be given to learned Standing Counsel since information was placed before respondent no. 2 by the concerned subordinate offices, belatedly. 11. Learned Standing Counsel in the above facts and circumstances has also stated before this Court, on behalf of Sri Sailesh Kumar Singh, Director, Sports, respondent no. 2, that inaction/lack of response was due to faulty official system with regard to communication of Court's order/messages of learned Standing Counsels of this Court and there was no deliberate negligence. 12. It was further pleaded that since now the very cause of action for which this writ petition has been filed, has disappeared since the result has been declared, this writ petition has rendered infructuous and be dismissed accordingly. 13. So far as this part of the statement of learned Standing Counsel is concerned that now the result has been declared, therefore, the relief sought by petitioner no more exists and in absence of cause of action, writ petition has rendered infructuous and nothing further need be done in this matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute it. 14. However, the way in which this matter had to be taken up on the board thrice, though could have been disposed of on the very first or on the second date, has to be viewed seriously inasmuch as, it is frequent listing of short matters which ultimately consume precious time of the Court and multiply the cases. A quick response in the matter like the present one would have resulted in quick disposal, if the authorities would have acted with due expediency and sincerity. A quick response in the matter like the present one would have resulted in quick disposal, if the authorities would have acted with due expediency and sincerity. Probably this writ petition would not have seen light of the day and could have avoided consumption of Court's precious time in dealing with this kind of petty and avoidable cases, if the respondents would have shown a more concern and responsible attitude. 15. If the state officials would have shown a little bit serious concern towards their work and have made efforts for timely performance, the petitioner would not have found any occasion to approach this Court. It is not something wrong specifically done by respondents but their inaction for unreasonably long time which has caused this litigation. No doubt, it is responsibility of the Court to protect the interest of wrong done to public and to direct the state officials to act in accordance with law, but the state officials cannot claim to enjoy a licence of showing unaccountable attitude or inaction towards their official duties, compelling poor citizens to approach this Court only to remind the authorities of their duties, and only thereafter to wake up and try to justify that since they have now abide to their duties, nothing can be done against them and the complaint made by the citizens must be dismissed as infructuous. 16. The constitution has contemplated three separate wings with a widely but clearly demarcated duties and obligations. The executive wing has to adhere to discharge duties, honestly and with due expeditiousness. A large number of cases come to the Court, just to seek a command to the Executive reminding them of their duties. An expeditious disposal and timely action on the part of executive can save precious time of Court which can be utilized by Courts in deciding other substantial and more important matters. The Executive has constitutional obligation to see that the courts may function effectively, not flooded with such cases which may be termed frivolous avoidable litigation. The Courts' experience is that, these days, one of the major chunk of litigation, constitute of those cases in which the basic complaint by litigants is about apathy, inaction and indifferent approach towards duties and obligation on the part of Executive. The Courts' experience is that, these days, one of the major chunk of litigation, constitute of those cases in which the basic complaint by litigants is about apathy, inaction and indifferent approach towards duties and obligation on the part of Executive. Substantial time is taken in disposal of such matters which could have been avoided if the Executive would have done its own duty, within a reasonable time and with due expediency. 17. In the present case, it is also interesting to see that a senior officer, for medical reason claimed that he is not able to work effectively making his flaw apparent, still the government did not take any appropriate action and the official, under the cover of his illness, is explaining an unnecessary delay which has caused almost a permanent loss to the selected candidates, inasmuch as, after the selection, the appointment would be prospective and thereby would deprive perks/salary and benefits to which the appointees would have entitled had they been appointed well in time. This loss has occurred due to delayed appointment. 18. There has to be a system of accountability and the officers responsible for such delay must be saddled with some personal responsibility, so as to compensate adversely affected parties and that could be one way of doing justice to the sufferers and wronged over. 19. Further the government officers are also required to evolve a system where court's orders and messages, communicated through counsels/Standing Counsel directly received by the officer(s) concerned, who is/are party in the case, so that, steps for compliance may flow downwards and not in a reversible manner where the lower hierarchy officers have neither any answerability nor responsibility nor accountability. 20. In the present case, I am of the view that the State Government must be given an opportunity to look into all these matters so as to find out effective measures and appropriate policy to avoid this kind of situation, shouldering its responsibility of issuing more stringent orders. 21. This writ petition since having become infructuous is dismissed, subject to the observations made above. 22. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow for his information and appropriate action in the light of the observations made above.