The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Judge had the discretion and jurisdiction to admit the case and grant a stay order based on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

1. The appellant is the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, a statutory body under the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Council). The contesting respondent is one Pramod Kumar working on the post of a Deputy Secretary with the Council. The cause to file the writ petition arose, as the respondent-petitioner asserts, the absorption into service and the promotion given to him by the Council was illegally recalled after 22 years of service with the latter. That it was done, is not denied but made an issue, that it could be done.

2. Initially, before deputation and absorption, the respondent-petitioners had been recruited by and in service of the Patna University. The Council had been structured, virtually, by employees brought on deputation.

3. The facts are given in the petitioner-respondents writ petition. Paragraph 1 reads :

"That, this application is being filed against highly wrongful and illegal order, dated 13.03.2003 passed by respondent No. 3 by which after 22 long years of absorption and promotion of petitioner by the Board of Council without holding any enquiry the respondents have not only held that his absorption and promotion given by the Board of the Council is illegal but after 22 years of service in Intermediate Council where the petitioner has been duly promoted by the Board has been sent back to his original place of appointment in P.U. although lien of petitioner against that post has already came to end, in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of law, on the other hand other persons who too were absorbed and promoted along with the petitioner have been retained by the respondents."

4. The counter-affidavit does not reply to the petition paragraph by paragraph but the submission made by the Council in Paragraph 23 does confirm on what the issue is about. The Council states :

"That the petitioner was not only wrongly absorbed in the Council but was also wrongly given promotion in the Council. The law is well-settled that if the foundation falls, the superstructure undisputedly falls on the ground. In the aforesaid peculiar situation due to wrong/incorrect and conditional absorption of the petitioner in the Council, which conditions are still not fulfilled, the petitioners services has been returned to his parent organisation, the inadmissible land illegal the claim of the petitioner that he has been promoted to higher posts is wholly immaterial. Thus, the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent organisation is legal, proper and valid."

5. In the petition, the Council is an opposite-party. The issue and the facts as presented are that the petitioner (respondent in the appeal) was absorbed in the services of the Council and had been given a promotion. The Council, on the other hand, submits that both the absorption and the promotion were wrongly given. That absorption and promotion were granted is accepted. It should not have been given. These are issues.

6. On this, the learned Judge in jurisdiction felt that issues are debatable. The writ petition was admitted. At the time of admission on 25 November, 2003 the following order was passed :

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties I think that present is the matter which needs a detailed hearing. The petition is admitted for hearing. The effect and operation of the order directing repatriation of the petitioner from Intermediate Council to Patna University shall remain in abeyance till disposal of this matter.Sd. R.S. Garg, J.

7. Now, the Council has filed a Letters Parent Appeal to challenge the order of the learned Judge with a prayer that the Letters Patent Appeal be admitted and the order of the learned Judge admitting the writ petition be set-aside. A certificate is given by the Advocate for the appellants to state that "It is certify (sic) that grounds set forth in this appeal are good grounds for Letters Patent Appeal".

8. On this, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner took a