AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a relief of Writ of Mandamus in directing the First
Respondent/District Collector to approve the selection of the Petitioner as Village Assistant as per the selection proceedings of the Second
Respondent, in Na. Ka. No. A5/452/2007, dated 16.04.2007, on par with the other selected candidates.
The Petitioner joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Kulithalai and he had studied upto Eighth Standard. He had not completed his
Eighth Standard. A Transfer Certificate was issued to him by the Government Higher Secondary School, Kulithalai. He registered his name, on
02.08.2006 in the Third Respondent/District Employment Office, for seeking employment in the Government Departments.
The Second Respondent/Tahsildar, Kulithalai, on 26.03.2007, by means of his proceedings called for interview to the post of Village Assistant
in Kulithalai Taluk. He sent the interview card to the Petitioner on 26.03.2007 on the basis of his seniority, in the Third Respondent/Office. The
Second Respondent/Tahsildar as per the interview card requested the Petitioner to appear on 16.04.2007, at about 11.00 A.M. before him.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the qualification for the post of Village Assistant as per the interview card is that a candidate should know the
driving of Bicycle, must be within the age limit prescribed by the Government and the educational qualification is that the candidate should have
completed the Fifth standard. Also, a candidate should write Tamil. The other qualifications are related to health, age, caste certificate and further a
candidate should not have more than one wife. The Petitioner attended the interview on 16.04.2007(by means of the interview card sent to him)
and his name was recommended by the Second Respondent/Tahsildar for appointment to the post of Village Assistant in respect of Nalloor
Village.
To the Petitioner''s dismay, the said appointment process itself was cancelled by the Government. Subsequently, the Government came forward
with another appointment by means of G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 08.08.2007 in and by which the Government fixed the appointment ratio at 1:5 and
directed all the Tahsildars to follow the same. The Petitioner was selected in the earlier appointment for the post of Village Assistant in the Second
Respondent''s Office on the basis of seniority in the Third Respondent/Employment Exchange Office. The Second Respondent fixed the date of
interview for the post of Village Assistant on 30.08.2007 at 11.00 A.M. and started issuing the interview cards. To his surprise and shock, he had
not received any interview card from the Second Respondent for the interview dated 30.08.2007.
As per the interview card, he is one of the senior most person registered with the Third espondent/Employment Exchange Office. Therefore, the
Second Respondent should have issued the interview card only to him before sending interview cards to the persons who registered their names
after his registration, dated 02.08.2006. But, the Second Respondent had not issued the interview card with malafide intention.
On an enquiry, the Petitioner obtained the particulars of individuals who received the interview cards. But, they were junior to him. The said
particulars are as follows:
S.No. Registration No. Name and Address
01 2006 M06117 P. Rajendran
SF 10.10.2006 S/o.Palanisamy, 10, KeelaNandavanaKaadu,
Nangavaram,Kulithalai.
02 2006 M06463 P. Sivakumar
SF 23.11.2006 S/o.Ponnan, 70, KadambarKoil Street
Kulithalai, Karur.
03 2006 M06708 P.Dhanapal,
SF 11.12.2006 S/o.K.Pitchaikaran, 31, Kappureddi Patty,
Marudhur, Kulithalai, Karur.
04 2007 F 00391 R Amudha
W/o.V.Pandian, 7, SabapathiNadar Street,
Kulithalai, Karur.
Thus, it is clear that the Second Respondent has not done the appointment process in a transparent manner and with an ulterior motive to help
ineligible persons, avoiding issuance of interview card on the basis of seniority.
The Petitioner contends that the act and attitude of the Second Respondent/Tahsildar, Kulithalai would reveal that the present appointment for
the post of Village Assistant as per the proceedings in Na.Ka.A5/452/2007, dated 26.03.2007 is not in accordance with the Rules and
Procedures. Since, there was no response from the Second Respondent''s office, inspite of repeated requests of the Petitioner, he has left with no
option but to file the present Writ of Mandamus in praying for issuance of direction by this Court to the First Respondent/District Collector to
approve the selection of the Petitioner as Village Assistant as per the selection proceedings of the Second Respondent, in Na.Ka. No.
A5/452/2007, dated 16.04.2007, on par with the other selected candidates.
According to the Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents, the Second Respondent/Tahsildhar, Kulithalai, by means of
his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. A5/452/2007, dated 26.03.2007 has called for the interview to the post of Village Assistant and the Government
as per G.O. Ms. No. 787 (Revenue Services 7) , Department, dated 08.12.2006 has sanctioned to fill up 3674 Village Assistant Post, in Tamil
Nadu, through Employment Exchange. Furthermore, the norms for recruitment of the said post shall also to be adopted as prescribed in G.O. Ms.
No. 521 Revenue, dated 17.06.1998. Therefore, a permission was sought for from the First Respondent/District Collector, Karur, to fill up the
vacancies through Employment Exchange, as per the reference in R.C. No. 452 of 2007 dated 18.01.2007 in respect of 12 vacancies for the
Village Assistant Posts in the twelve villages mentioned therein.
The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits that the Third Respondent/District Employment Officer, Karur has
submitted a list after rectifying the defects and an intimation has been sent on 28.03.2007, fixing the date on 09.04.2007 to enable the candidates
to attend for the interview. But the interview was postponed because of the fact that the Third Respondent/District Employment Officer,Karur had
not complied with 33% Women quota as per letter in Ref. No. X 2(2) 79191/2006, dated 13.03.2007. Hence, a new list complying with 33%
Women quota was called for from the third Respondent, on 30.03.2007, after receipt of rectified list on 03.04.2007. The interview cards were
sent to all those persons, whose names were found in the list to attend the interview on 16.04.2007. Interview card was also sent to the Petitioner
through certificate of posting on 07.04.2007. The Petitioner attended the interview. The entire file was transmitted to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, for obtaining his concurrence.
While, that being the position, the Government issued instructions as per G.O. Ms. No. 85, dated 30.03.2007, which was received by the
Second Respondent on 24.05.2007. As such, for filling up the vacancies in any employment in Government Departments, the Employment
Exchange shall sponsor candidates to the employees in the ratio of 1:1 as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register. On 08.08.2007,
the Government by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 429 have ordered for the recruitment of Village Assistant from the candidates sponsored by the
Employment Exchange as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register in the ratio of 1:5. The Joint Commissioner of Revenue
Administration, Chennai through his letter No. RA.2(2)/79191/2006 dated 09.08.2007 issued instructions to complete the process before
31.08.2007.
Accordingly, a list was called for from the Third Respondent/District Educational Officer, Karur to send sponsors in the 1:5 ratio on
13.08.2007. A list was sent by the Third Respondent on 20.08.2007. However, the interview letter was sent to those, individuals who were
sponsored by the Third Respondent on 21.08.2007. The interview was called for on 30.08.2007. In the said list, the Petitioner''s name had not
found a place .
This Court, in the present Writ Petition in M.P.(M.D) No. 1 of 2007, on 04.09.2007 inter alia passed an order of interim injunction, restraining
the Respondent from filling up the post in Kazhugur Village.
The main contention advanced on behalf of the Respondents is that the Second Respondent has taken action to fill up the post of Village
Assistant as per instructions issued by the Government and in the list sent by the Third Respondent/District Educational Office, the name of the
Petitioner does not find a place for which the Second Respondent/Tahsildar, Kulithalai cannot be blamed in any manner what so ever.
Apart from the above, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner registered his 7th
Standard qualification on 23.02.2004 as per Registration No. 2006 M04962 NCO code being X02.90. The Second Respondent notified eight
posts of Village Assistants in the month of April 2007. At that time, the Third Respondent office sponsored eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:20
and as such the name of the Petitioner has been sponsored to the vacancies notified by the Second Respondent/Tahsildar.
However, the Second Respondent/Tahsildar, Kulithalai on 20.08.2007, again notified 8 vacancies of Village Assistant and made a request to
sponsor the candidates in the ratio of 1:5. A list of eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:5 has been sent on 20.08.2007 in terms of the qualification.
The seniority of the last candidate is 20.07.1998. The Petitioner has not been sponsored as he registered his qualification only on 2.08.2006.
Earlier, his name has been sponsored to the second Respondent for the post of Village Assistant on 04.04.2007 because of the request made to
sponsor the candidates in the ratio of 1:20. Later on 20.08.2007, a request was made to sponsor the candidates in the ratio of 1:5. Therefore, the
candidates belonging to the scheduled caste community were sponsored upto 20.07.1998 only. Therefore, the the Petitioner''s name could not be
sponsored to the Second Respondent for the post of Village Assistant.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings of the Second Respondent/Tahsildar dated 16.04.2007, wherein the
Petitioner''s name finds a place in Serial No. 6 has not been cancelled so far.
At this juncture, this Court worth recalls the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor
and Others, , wherein it is held that ''Inclusion of name in select list does not confer indefeasible right to be appointed''.
Furthermore, this Court pertinently points out the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh and
others, , wherein it is laid down that ''The selectees are not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before cancellation as even though they have a
legitimate expectation but they have no indefeasible right to be appointed in the absence of any rule to that effect e.t.c.''
That apart, this Court cites the following decisions:
(a) In Union of India and others Vs. N.R. Banerjee and others, at paragraph 12, it is held that ''Mere inclusion of one''s name in the list does not
confer any right on him/her to appointment and further the Government is free not to fill up the vacancy''
(b) In Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Vijesh, , wherein paragraph 7 and 8, which is observed hereunder:
In view of the above pronouncement of this Court the order of the Tribunal directing absorption of the Respondent solely on the ground that his
name was included in the select list cannot be sustained. The reliance of the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court in Prem Prakash Vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Others, , particularly, the above quoted passage was wholly misplaced for, in that case, the notification regarding recruitment
specifically providing that once a person was declared successful according to the merit list of selected candidates the appointing authority had the
responsibility to appoint him even if the number of vacancies had undergone a change after his name has been included in the list of selected
candidates. It furthr provided that where selected candidates were awaiting appointment, recruitment should either be postponed till all the selected
candidates were accomodated or, alternatively, intake for the next recruitment reduced by the number of candidates awaiting appointment. Relying
solely on the above notification this Court made the earlier quoted observations in Prem Prakash case, (supra). In absence of any such rules
governing the appointment of the Respondent, the Tribunal was therefore not justified in passing the impugned order.
Though the above discussion of ours was sufficient to set aside the impugned order, we had, -keeping in view the observations of this Court in
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, ,- called for and looked into the relevant records of the Railways to ascertain whether the Railway
Administration has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the Respondent''s claim and, for that matter, whether appointments had been made according to the
comparative merits of the candidates or not. The records not only indicate that the contention of the Railways that the Respondent was placed at
the bottom of the list is correct but also that the appointments have been made according to the comparative merits of the candidates. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the rejection of the Respondent''s claim was arbitrary or discriminatory.
(c) In Hanuman Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , it is held that.
The power to cancel the select list for appointment to Group ''C'' posts of Ticket Collector on the ground of malpractice in writing the examination
can be exercised even by the Divisional Manager authorised by the General Manager, Railways.
(d) In State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and Others etc., wherein at paragraph 8 and 9, it is observed as follows:
As was observed by this Court in Government of Orissa through Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneswar Vs.
Haraprasad Das and Others, , whether to fill up or not to fill up the post, is a policy decision and unless it is arbitrary, the High Court or the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. In the present case, even
no selection was made and not even any select list was in existence. Even if there had been any such selection or inclusion of any of the names in
the select list, same could not have given any right. Therefore, mere sending of name by the employment exchange could not have and in fact has
not conferred any right. The writ applications are thoroughly misconceived, and the Court misdirected itself as to the nature of relief to be granted.
It cannot be lost sight of that because of certain circumstances and policy decision which were also brought to the notice of the High Court,
appointments could not be made. The reasons which persuaded the Government to absorb those who were rendered surplus on account of
abolition of octroi and the decision taken to abolish Substantial number of posts to minimize expenditure cannot be said to be either extraneous or
irrelevant for the purpose to be ignored by the Court in according relief to the writ petition. But the High Court not withstanding chose to give
directions as quoted above. The appointments made in respect of some who got empanelled on regular selections made by the recruitment Board
pursuant to the selection process undertaken does not give any sustenance to the writ Petitioners to claim parity of treatment when their claims
cannot be equated to those of such empanelled candidates.''
(e) In the decision U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Shiv Narain Gupta, , in paragraph 6 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
(6)We may briefly notice the factual stand taken by the Corporation before the High Court. It is stated that in January 1990 the World Bank
assessed the possibility of entrusting a Reclamation Project to the Corporation. Keeping in view the proposed project the Corporation advertised
for the post of Financial Controller. At the time when the panel was prepared by the selection committee, the project had not started but since the
candidate at number one of the merit panel, Sunil Kumar Sachdeva, was in addition qualified Company Secretary, it was thought appropriate by
the Corporation to offer the appointment to him. By December 1990 it transpired that the project was not likely to start at least for a period of
two/three years. The World Bank Mission visited India in July 1991 and conveyed that the setting up of the project was likely to to be delayed
considerably. Under these circumstances, the Board of Directors of the Corporation decided to abolish the post of Financial Controller till further
projects were made available and entrusted to the Corporation. It was contended by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam that in the facts and circumstances
of this case, the Corporation acted bona fide and was justified in not offering the appointment to the Respondent. We agree with the learned
Counsel. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in issuing the mandamus in the facts and circumstances of this case. This
Court has authoritatively laid down that even if a vacancy is available and the employer bona fide declines to make an appointment, the candidate
on the select list has no right whatsoever to claim appointment. In the present case the post was abolished by the Board of Directors in the year
1991. Shiv Narain Gupta in fact challenged before the High Court the action of the Corporation in abolishing the post. Neither the facts of this case
nor the law on the subject warranted any interference by the High Court in the writ petition filed by Shiv Narain Gupta. The constitution Bench
judgment in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, was cited before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. We are constrained to say that the
learned Judge failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the said judgment.
It is to be borne in mind that there is a difference between the term of ''Recruitment'' and ''Appointment'', The term ''Recruitment'' means
enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. To put it succinctly ''Recruitment'' is an initial process that may lead to an eventual
appointment in service. But that cannot tantamount to an appointment as per the decision in Prafulla Kumar Swain Vs. Prakash Chandra Misra and
Others, .
Also, in the decision of Usha Narawariya (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1994 (1) SLR 142 AT PAGE 143).
The term ''Appointment'' means an actual act of posting of a person to a particular service.
A policy decision of the Government pertaining to the recruitment is not amenable to a judicial review unless the same is an arbitrary one.
Really speaking, the selection and approval for appointment are different process of recruitment.
In this connection, it is relevant for this Court to make a significant mention that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision State of A.P. and
Others Vs. D. Dastagiri and Others, as held under
In the absence of publication of select list, the selection process was not complete. But that as it may, even if the selection process was complete
and assuming that only select list remained to be published, that does not advance the case of the Respondents for the simple reason that even the
candidates who are selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. The
State Government had a right to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in State. If pursuant to a policy decision
taken to impose prohibition in the State there was no requirement for the recruitment of Constables in the Excise Department, nobody can insist
that they must appoint the candidates as Excise Constables. It is not the case of the Respondents that they must appoint the candidates as Excise
constables. It is not the case of the Respondents that there was any mala fides on the part of the Appellants in refusing the appointment to the
Respondents after the selection process was complete. The only claim was that the action of the Appellants, in not appointing the Respondents as
Excise constables, was arbitrary. In the light of the facts, when it was open to the Government to take a policy decision, the Respondents cannot
dub the action of the Respondents as arbitrary, particularly, when they did not have any right as such to claim appointments. In the absence of
selection and publication of select list, mere concession or submission made by the Government Pleader on behalf of the Appellant State that the
cases of the Respondents would be considered for appointment in the existing vacancies cannot improve the case of the Respondents. Similarly,
such a submission cannot confer right on the Respondents, which they otherwise did not have.
Also, this Court points out the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate
Services Association and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 to 18 is observed as
follows:
Aware of our jurisdictional limitations we do not agree that the Court can analyse such minutiae to fault the policy and quash the order of
Government i.e. G.O. No. 1968. For argument''s sake, let us assume that there is a volte face on the part of the Government in shifting its stand in
the matter of computation of seniority with reference to length of service. Surely, policy is not static but is dynamic and what weighed with the
Government. When panchayat institutions were amalgamated with the District Board institutions might have been given up in the light of experience
or changed circumstances. What was regarded as administratively impractical might, on later thought and activist reconsideration, turn out to be
feasible and fair. The Court can not strike down a G.O., or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction. Life is sometimes
contradiction and even inconsistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous
factor fouls. It is impossible to maintain that the length of service as District Board employees is irrational as a criterion. Let us assume for
argument''s sake that the mode of selection by the District Boards is not as good as by the Public Service Commission. Even so it is difficult to
dislodge the Government''s position that the teachers with mostly the same qualifications, discharging similar functions and training similar students
for similar examinations, cannot be equated from a pragmatic angle without being condemned as guilty of arbitrariness.
Sri Govind Swaminathan drove home the point that in some cases even a few hundred ''A'' wing members have been passed over by some
one in the ''B'' wing far junior to them. Once the principle is found to be rational the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either
side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr and however unhappy we be to see the seniors of
yesterday becoming the juniors of today, this is an area where absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy.
The ''B'' wing members complain that they have really suffered by being denied what is due to them on account of length of service in all these
years after 1970. The boot is on the other leg, they lament. Probably, the injustice of the past, when suddenly set right by the equity of the present,
puts on a molested mien and the beneficiaries of the status quo cry for help against injustice to them. The law, as an instrument of social justice,
takes a longer look to neutralise the sins of history. But that as it may, judicial power cannot rush in where even administrative feats fear to tread.
Admittedly, the Petitioner''s name finds a place in the list of persons whose names have been forwarded, to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kulithalai by the second Respondent, as per the proceedings dated 16.04.2007. The Second Respondent in the said proceedings has requested
the Revenue Divisional Officer., Kulithalai to publish the list as regards the name of persons selected for the post of Village Assistant and further he
has sent the certificates and the Employment Exchange Office list for perusal. But the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 85 dated 30.03.2007
received by the Second Respondent dated 24.05.2007 and for filing up of vacancy in any employment in Government Departments, Employment
Exchange has to sponsor the candidates to the employees as per ratio 1:1 (seniority of registration) who are in the live register on 08.08.2007. In
G.O. Ms. No. 429, dated 08.08.2007, the Government has ordered for the recruitment of Village Assistants from the candidates sponsored by
the Employment Exchange as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register in the ratio of 1:5 and hence, the Third Respondent/District
Employment Exchange was required to send the sponsors on 13.08.2007 and accordingly, a list was sent by the Third Respondent on 20.08.2007
and a interview letter was sent to the candidates who have sponsored by the Third Respondent on 21.08.2007 and interview was called for on
30.08.2007 and in the list the Petitioner''s name was not found. When the Petitioner''s name was sponsored initially, when the Second Respondent
notified 8 posts of village Assistants during April 2007, the Third Respondent Office sponsored eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:20 and at that
time, the Petitioner''s name was sponsored by the second Respondent.
Subsequently, the Second Respondent on 20.08.2007 notified 8 vacancies of Village Assistant''s posts in the ratio of 1:5 and as per the
notification, a list of eligible candidates was sent on 20.08.2007 in the ratio of 1:5. The seniority of the last candidate was 20.07.1998. The
candidates belonging to the Schedule caste community were sponsored upto 20.07.1998. Because of the revised instructions, issued by the
Government, the Petitioner''s name could not find a place. Added further, the Petitioner''s name could not be sponsored because he registered his
Educational Qualification only on 02.08.2006. Merely because the Petitioner was recommended for appointment as per the proceedings dated
16.04.2007 of the Second Respondent and the list have been sent to Revenue Divisional Officer for approval, the same would not confer any
benefit or right to the Petitioner in the considered opinion of this Court.
As a matter of fact, even though the Petitioner belongs to the down trodden community and since the employer requested to sponsor the
candidates in the ratio of 1:5 on 20.08.2007 and also because of the fact that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Community were sponsored
upto 20.07.1998, the Petitioner could not be sponsored to the Second Respondent for the post of Village Assistant. In fact, only based on the list
sent by the Third Respondent, on 20.08.2007 in the ratio of 1:5, a letter has been sent to those, who have been sponsored by the Third
Respondent on 21.08.2007 and the interview was called for on 30.08.2007. Moreover, in the list sent, the Petitioner''s name was not to be found.
In reality, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai has not approved the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 16.04.2007, wherein the
Petitioner''s name has been found in Serial No. 6. Though the Petitioner''s name finds a place in Serial No. 6 of the proceedings of the second
Respondent, dated 16.04.2007, as a selected candidate for the post of Village Assistant, yet, the same has not been approved by the Revenue
Divisional Officer. As stated earlier, the Government has issued a G.O. Ms. No. 429 dated 08.08.2007, ordering for the recruitment of Village
Assistant''s from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per seniority of Registration, who are in the live register in the ratio of
1:5. The Petitioner has not challenged the G.O. Ms. No. 429 of the Government, dated 08.08.2007, ordering for the recruitment of Village
Assistants from the candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange as per the seniority of Registration, who are in the live register in the
ratio of 1:5. When that being the factual position, this Court opines that it is not open to the Petitioner to seek a Mandamus in directing the First
Respondent to approve the selection of the Petitioner as Village Assistant as per selection proceedings of the Second Respondent, in Na. Ka. No.
A5/452/2007, dated 16.04.2007 on par with the other selected candidates. At the risk of repetition, it is to be borne in mind that the Petitioner''s
name could not be sponsored as he registered his Educational Qualification only on 02.08.2006. Suffice it for this Court to point out that in the
absence of the Second Respondent''s proceedings dated 16.04.2007, addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, has not been approved
and also the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No. 429 dated 08.08.2007, ordering for the recruitment of the Village Assistants from the
candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as per the seniority of registration, who are in the live register, in the ratio of 1:5, which has
not been challenged by the Petitioner, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Petitioner cannot claim any vested right or indefeasible
right by virtue of the proceedings dated 16.04.2007 of the Second Respondent, which has not been approved subsequently by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kulithalai. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.