Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9901 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.

Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son of Keshav Bihari Prasad Srivastava, Resident of Kalyanpur, Harouna, Mursandi, P.S.-Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur. 2.

Ashok Kumar Gupta, son of Yogendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageWard No. 25, Gudari Bazar, Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India, Ministry of Finance through its Chief Secretary, New Delhi. 2.

The Chairman of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India situated at Headquarter, Hyderabad.

3.

The Chairman of Life Insurance Corporation of India situated at Head Office, Central Mumbai.

4.

The Zonal Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, East Central Zone Office 5th Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna, Bihar. 5.

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur division at Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

6.

The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of Begusarai, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rashmi Sharma with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Mr. Vipul Sinha, Advocates For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa & Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Advocates.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-08-2023 On mentioning slip being filed for priority listing, the matter has been listed today under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent- Life Insurance Corporation ( for brevity 'the Corporation').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9901 of 2023(3) dt.08-08-2023 2/2 petitioners' grievance in respect of publication of final merit list for the post of 'Apprentice Development Officer' in the Respondent- Corporation has become infructuous due to events subsequent to filing of the writ petition, as the petitioners have been called for interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, does not wish to press this application.

4. In view of such submissions, which is not denied or disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, the writ application is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U