R K GAUTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as a Principal by Memo dated 21st July, 1995. However, by Memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as competent authority, the appointment of the appellant as Principal was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualifications. The Memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 is the subject matter of challenge in CW No. 14/98 filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 2nd February, 1998 has issued rule in the writ petition. The application for grant of stay filed alongwith the writ petition has been, however, dismissed and the application seeking vacation of ex-parte order of stay has been allowed. By a detailed order, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that :

(2.) Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge on interim application the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) At the outset, we may notice that the settled legal position is that grant of interim order of injunction which may result in a petitioner continuing in service is an exception and non-grant a rule. Of course, in a given case depend ing upon facts and circumstances of the case an interim order which may result in the writ petitioner/appellant continuing in service pending the decision on merits of the main writ petition or appeal, may be justified but ordinarily such an order is made as a clear case of illegality and arbitrariness where any other interim arrangement to do complete justice between the parties may not be possible to be made. The reason for this legal position is obvious. The non-grant of interim injunction can be compensated by grant of damages but if the services are continued, it may be difficult to compensate the other party even in a case where writ petition or appeal is dismissed.