Judgment : V. Dhanapalan,J.- 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, these Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants / respondents, Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the respondents / petitioners in W.A.Nos.2234, 2235 and 2238 of 2013 and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the respondents / petitioners in W.A.Nos.2236 and 2237 of 2013. 3. These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.35061, 35062 of 2012 and 1923, 1964 and 2039 of 2013, in and by which, the learned Single Judge inter alia issued direction to the Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai to obtain an opinion of the Equivalence Committee on the basis of the letters furnished by the Bharathidasan University as well as the University of Madras and take a decision and while doing so, the State Government will also consider the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to in the judgment in question in Chandrakala Trivedi's case and arrive at a decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order. In the impugned judgment, it was also made clear that, if the result of such decision is in favour of the petitioners, then appropriate orders of appointment should be given to petitioners, who are not issued with the order of appointment and in case, the petitioners, who are already having appointment orders, they must be given posting orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. Aggrieved over the said order, the appellants / respondents have preferred present writ appeals, seeking to quash the same. 4. However, learned counsel for the parties, by producing a copy of appointment order in Na.Ka.No.97568/lgps;a[3/,1/2013 dated 02.12.2013, would submit that the order under challenge, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions has already been considered favourably, appointment orders were also issued and therefore, no necessity arose to set aside the order of learned Single Judge, sought for in these writ appeals. 5. 5. At this juncture, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment passed on 29.11.2013 vide a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.16181 of 2012 etc., along with Contempt Petition (MD) No.637 of 2013, has ruled out as under: "25. In view of the above settled position and for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the equivalence certificate issued by the committee constituted by the Government declaring that the degrees obtained from one University is equivalent to the degrees obtained from yet another University cannot be held to be only prospective in operation but will have its effect and validity right from the date of issuance, therefore, with due respect to the Hon'ble Division Bench, the view taken in N.Geetha's case is incorrect. Accordingly, the reference is answered." Therefore, he has fairly conceded that the benefit of the aforesaid ruling, recognizing retrospective effect of the equivalence certificate, will be extended to the case of respondents / petitioners also. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader as to the extension of benefit to the respondents, as a token of implementation of the order under appeal, in pursuance of the ruling of Full Bench, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. Therefore, these writ appeals stand closed, reserving rights to either of parties to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum, if anything remains unresolved or undecided. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.