Writ petitions become infructuous when petitioners are accommodated and no longer wish to pursue them.

The petitioners challenged notifications issued by the fourth respondent on 14 February 2018, seeking their continuation as project managers or placement in equivalent posts in other government livelihood and development projects

When the connected writ petitions were taken up, petitioners’ counsel informed the Court that all petitioners had been accommodated in different projects, continued to work, and no longer wished to pursue the cases

Whether the writ petitions remained live for adjudication after the petitioners’ counsel stated that all petitioners had been accommodated and did not wish to pursue the proceedings

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or substantive legal doctrine.

It acted on the petitioners’ counsel’s submission that the dispute had become infructuous and that the petitioners did not wish to pursue the petitions

In light of counsel’s statement that the petitioners had been accommodated in different projects and continued to work, and that they were not interested in pursuing the cases, the Court considered the petitions infructuous.

It did not examine the legality of the challenged notifications or determine the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to particular posts

made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions