JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ application, appointment letter was issued in favour of petitioner, but, due to non-communication by the petitioner, the same could not be brought to the knowledge of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the appointment letter has been issued long back in favour of the petitioner, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the matter. 4. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of being infructuous.