JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of part of Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment 2015) especially Rule 9 (8), by which the maximum age for appointment as a Director in the institution has been defined as 57 years which is against the AICTE Regulation as the rule so framed by the State of Jharkhand cannot be inflicted with the regulation framed by the AICTE and even the State Government cannot enter in the field which has already been occupied by way of Central Legislation i.e. AICTE Regulation, hence, the said clause 9(8) is to be declared illegal, void and without jurisdiction; (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of advertisement dated 27.06.2016, by which the maximum age for appointment has been described as 57, the petitioner adhere all the qualification as required in terms of the advertisement, but could not apply because of the maximum age as already crossed 57 years otherwise the petitioner is eligible to be appointed in terms of the AICTE Regulation; (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order till the matter is sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court and allow petitioner to appear provisionally; and (iv) Petitioner further prays to stay the operation of the advertisement order dated 27.06.2016 and part of Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment 2015) especially Rule 9(8) as contained in Annexures-4 & 5 to this writ application, till the matter is sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the vires of the provision of Rule 9(8) of the Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment, 2015) has been assailed, by which, the maximum age for appointment as a Director in the institution has been fixed to 57 years which is against the AICTE Regulation but the writ petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition, has already crossed the age of 65 years and as such, he is not pressing the instant writ petition. However, the issue pertaining to validity of the provision of Rule 9(8) of the Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment, 2015) may be left open for its adjudication in any other appropriate proceeding. 4. Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, learned A.C to G.A-I appearing for the State as also Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC have not objected to such submission of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 5. This Court after considering the aforesaid submission is of the view that since the writ petitioner has already attained the age of 65 years, therefore, nothing survives to be decided in this writ petition. So far as the benefit of extension of age is concerned as provided under the provision of Rule 9(8) of the Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment, 2015), the writ petition to that effect is rendered to be infructuous. 6. However, the issue of validity of the provision of Rule 9(8) of the Jharkhand Technical Education Service Rule, 2013 (Amendment, 2015) is left open for its adjudication in any other appropriate proceeding. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.