Sanjay Misra, J:- Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari has filed his power on behalf of the first and second respondents. Let the same be taken on record. 2. This public interest litigation has been filed ostensibly in the public interest to challenge the selection process for appointment to the post of Director at IIIT-A. A serious objection has been raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent to the maintainability of this petition. It has been stated that an identical petition has been filed for the same relief, which is to come up as a fresh matter today before the another Bench of this court. Moreover it has been stated that the selection process is continuing and interviews are scheduled to be held on 23 December 2013. Finally it has been submitted that the petition is motivated on behalf of a person who does not wish that a proper appointment be made to the post since the term of the existing director has already come to an end. Particularlyhaving regard to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (5) ESC 679 (SC), we are not inclined to entertain the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. 4. We dismiss the petition, since we are of the view that the petition is a complete abuse of the process of the court. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________