STATE OF U P Vs. DAYAVATI KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a settled and well established rule of practice which by convention and long usage has almost hardened into a rule of law, namely, that relief asked for and available at the stage of final disposal of writ proceedings, is not, except for special reasons, to be granted as interim relief at the interlocutory stage. Blatant disregard of this rule is revealed here.

(2.) TO give the relevant factual background, the writ petitioners Dayavati Khanna while holding the post of Joint Director of Education was on March 20 1991 given additional charge of looking after the work also of the Additional Director of Education, which she has been doing ever since.

(3.) WHEN the matter next came up before the learned Single Judge on October 13, 1993 the order shows that a direction was issued for the payment of salary as Additional Director to Dayavati Khanna.