JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Caveat No. 2369/2017: With the appearance of Mr. Ravi Abrol, learned counsel for the caveator, caveat shall stand discharged. LPASW No. 147/20174, MP No. 01/2017: The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this intra court appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed on the ground that since the appellants had appeared for the interview in compliance of the ad interim order dated 10.11.2016 and have failed to make the grade, therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as many as 20 petitions involving similar issue are pending consideration before the learned single Judge and on 18.07.2017, a direction was passed in SWP No. 81/2017 to list along with SWP No. 16/2017 and on 18.07.2017 itself, the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded that as many as 20 petitions are pending and he shall provide list of the 20 cases to the Registry of this Court within week’s time and the matter shall be taken up for consideration together. It is also submitted that in view of the order dated 18.07.2017, without adjudication of the issue involved in the writ petition, namely, whether the process of short listing adopted by the Public Service Commission is correct or not, the writ petition could not have been dismissed in limine. It is also submitted that similar matter should receive similar treatment. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Abrol, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 10 has submitted that another writ petition namely SWP No. 980/2016 was dismissed on the ground that it has been rendered infructuous on 17.07.2017 and therefore, the writ petition preferred by the appellants has also been dismissed in limine, rightly. 5. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Abrol, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 10 has submitted that another writ petition namely SWP No. 980/2016 was dismissed on the ground that it has been rendered infructuous on 17.07.2017 and therefore, the writ petition preferred by the appellants has also been dismissed in limine, rightly. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and admittedly, the writ petitions involving similar issue are pending consideration before the learned Single Judge, without adjudicating the issue involved in the writ petition, the same could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that since the petitioners have failed to make the grade, on the basis of their participation in the interview on the strength of an ad interim order passed in the writ petition, the writ petition could not have been dismissed as infructuous especially in view of the fact that the writ petitions involving similar issue are pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.07.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition preferred by the appellants along with other connected matters. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.