Sanjay Misra, J:- This special appeal by the State arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 August 2013. Respondents 1 to 6 are the original petitioners in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge out of which the appeal arises. They had filed the petition in January 2011, seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents (the State through its Secretary, Home and the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat) to issue appointment letters in pursuance of their selection on Class-IV posts of Cooks, Sweepers and Peons. These posts, it was stated, were advertised by the Superintendent of Police and selections were held in July 2010, in pursuance of which the results were declared on 2 August 2010. Their case was that though they were successful in the selection process, no appointment letters were issued. 2. In May 2011, a counter affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat on behalf of the first and the second respondents to the writ petition stating that letters of appointment were not issued because the Principal Secretary (Finance) in the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 8 September 2010 directing all the Heads of Departments of the State that in future, regular appointments to Class - IV (Group - D) posts shall not be made and the vacancies would be filled up by outsourcing. 3. On 21 October 2012, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh sent a proposal to the Administrative Department, enumerating the difficulties involved in outsourcing the work in the police department on the ground that the nature of duties and responsibilities were different from other Class - IV establishments of Government Departments. On 7 March 2013, a communication was issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance) permitting the holding of regular selection/recruitment in respect of Class-IV employees in the police department and in respect of certain posts which were set out in the letter. These facts ought to have been brought on record before the learned Single Judge by filing a supplementary affidavit but were not placed on record before the learned Single Judge. These facts ought to have been brought on record before the learned Single Judge by filing a supplementary affidavit but were not placed on record before the learned Single Judge. Eventually, by the judgment and order dated 23 August 2013, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 8 September 2010 as being ultra vires the Uttar Pradesh Police Group-D Employees Service Rules, 2009 and directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat to proceed in respect of the appointment of the persons who have already been selected ignoring paragraph 2 of the Government Order. 4. In view of the fact that by a communication of 7 March 2013 of the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Director General of Police, the grievance of the petitioners has been duly met, it is not necessary to express any view on the wider issues which have been raised in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The exception which has been carved out in the communication dated 7 March 2013 will sufficiently protect the interest of the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 to 6 to the appeal. Hence, it has been stated on behalf of the appellants before the Court that in terms of the exception which has been carved out in the communication dated 7 March 2013, the selection process which was initiated in 2010 shall be taken to its logical conclusion and letters of appointment shall be issued to the selected candidates expeditiously. 5. In view of this development, the wider issues which have been raised in the judgment of the learned Single Judge are not required to be considered. The judgment of the learned Single Judge shall accordingly stand set aside for the aforesaid reasons with the clarification that this would not amount to the expression of any opinion by the Court on the issues raised in the judgment which may be considered in an appropriate case. 6. Insofar as the respondents 1 to 6 are concerned, since their grievances have now been met, the petition filed by them shall accordingly stand allowed in the terms noted above. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________