JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - Writ Appeal No.42 of 2018 arises out of the judgment and order dated 04.10.2018 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.833 of 2018. Manipur Public Service Commission, the appellant, was the petitioner in the said writ petition. Cause for grievance therein was the direction of the Manipur Information Commission, vide order dated 10.08.2018, that the Manipur Public Service Commission should provide certified copies of the answer sheets of 82 candidates selected in the Manipur Civil Services (Combined Competitive Examination), 2016, to Th. Lucy Devi, a third-party applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No.2 in the appeal. The complaint of the Manipur Public Service Commission was that an opportunity should have been given by the Manipur Information Commission to the 82 selected candidates before their answer scripts were directed to be furnished to a third party. By the judgment and order dated 04.10.2018, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.5000/-. 2. Earlier, Writ Appeal No. 54 of 2018 was filed against the very same judgment dated 04.10.2018 in W.P(C) No.833 of 2018. The appellants therein, three in number, were amongst the candidates selected in the subject examination. They were aggrieved by the direction of the Manipur Information Commission to furnish their answer scripts to a third party. They, however, sought leave to withdraw the said writ appeal reserving liberty to file an appeal afresh. Leave was granted to them on 09.12.2021 and the said writ appeal was dismissed with the liberty prayed for. Thereupon, they filed M.C(WA) No.1 of 2022 seeking condonation of the delay of 1159 days in preferring an appeal afresh against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2018 passed in W.P(C) No.833 of 2018. 3. While matters stood thus, the Supreme Court passed order dated 11.02.2022 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 5680 of 2021 and batch, directing the Manipur Public Service Commission to conduct afresh the Main Examination of the Manipur Civil Services (Combined Competitive Examination), 2016, and not later than four months from that day. In effect, the very selection of the 82 candidates in the earlier examination, whose answer papers were sought by the third-party applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, now stands set aside for all practical purposes. 4. In effect, the very selection of the 82 candidates in the earlier examination, whose answer papers were sought by the third-party applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, now stands set aside for all practical purposes. 4. However, that selection process would still survive in the context of the inquiry being undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation vis-à-vis irregularities allegedly committed in the holding of the examination in the year 2016. In so far as that aspect is concerned, the letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed by the SP & Head of Branch, CBI/ACB, Imphal, to Mr. W.Darakishwor, learned Sr.PCCG, reflects that CBI Case No. RC-2(A)/2020-IMP was registered by the CBI in the context of the 2016 examination and all answer scripts, including the answer scripts of the 82 selected candidates, were obtained by the CBI from the Manipur Public Service Commission. It was further recorded therein that Manipur Public Service Commission was co-operating fully with the CBI in the investigation of the case. 5. Mr. Th.Rohitkumar, learned counsel, represents Mr. M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, and states that the cause in the appeal does not survive for consideration on merits as the earlier selection of 82 candidates remains relevant only in relation to the CBI case. Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel, appears for the Manipur Information Commission, respondent No.1, and states that he has nothing to say in the matter. Mr.Julius Riamei, learned counsel, appears for the applicants in MC(WA) No.1 of 2022 and states that the objection of his clients was only with regard to furnishing of their answer scripts to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Ms. G.Puspa, learned counsel, appears for the third-party applicant, respondent No.2 in WA No.42 of 2018, and states that her client may have something to contribute in the investigation undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to the irregularities allegedly committed in the 2016 examination. Mr. W.Darakishwor, learned Sr.PCCG, appears for the Central Bureau of Investigation, and states that the CBI would abide by this Court's orders. 6. Given the totality of the aforestated circumstances, this Courts finds no purpose served in adjudicating these matters on merits as the issue no longer survives. The examination of 2016 now stands nullified in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court and it is for the authorities concerned to hold the examination afresh. 6. Given the totality of the aforestated circumstances, this Courts finds no purpose served in adjudicating these matters on merits as the issue no longer survives. The examination of 2016 now stands nullified in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court and it is for the authorities concerned to hold the examination afresh. As regards the CBI inquiry, all the answer scripts of the 2016 examination have already been taken possession of by it for the purpose of investigation. It is for the CBI to decide as to whether it requires any inputs from third parties, including Th.Lucy Devi, the applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It would be entirely within the discretion of the CBI to decide as to whether it requires her participation in the inquiry and if so, to what extent. She has no manner of right to insist upon being made part of the said inquiry. Making this position clear, WA No.42 of 2018 is disposed of. MC(WA) No.1 of 2022 is dismissed as the appeal sought to be filed by the applicants therein is rendered redundant. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.