JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners have thrown challenge to the Advt. No. 01/2017 (Annexure5) issued by the Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, State Forensic Laboratory, Jharkhand. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar assisted by Ms. Pinky Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners very fairly submits that already the Advt. No. 01/2017 (Annexure-5) has been stayed by Press Communique dated 09.11.2017 and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Samir Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argues that this writ petition has become infructuous as there is no cause of action as on date, since the impugned advertisement has already been stayed by the respondents till further notice. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh writ petition as and when cause of action arises. 6. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.