Facts leading to this appeal, briefly, are as under. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) filed Civil Rule No.2757 of 1992 against the Assam State Electricity Board (Board, for short) for quashing the order dated 23.7.92 placing him under suspension and the departmental pro­ceeding initiated against him. Learned Single Judge made an interlocutory order on 30.4.93 directing the Board to revoke the suspension order. The Board made an application for vacation of the said interlocutory order but the learned Single Judge rejected the application on 25.5.93. Hence this appeal.

2. Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the interlocutory order made on 30.4.93 has lapsed as the main writ petition has been finally disposed of on 3.7.93 allowing the writ petition and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

3. The question which arises for consideration is whether the order has lapsed or merged in the final order. The doctrine of merger is not doctrine of rigid and universal application, and it cannot be said that with the passing of final order every interlocutory order lapses or merges in the final order. The question, whether an interl