C.M. LODHA, C.J. — This special appeal under Cl. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against an inter-locutory order dated November 2, 1979 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 466 of 1979. When this appeal came up for admission, the Court directed the issue of notice to the respondents to show cause why the special appeal be not admitted. In response to the notice Mr. L.R. Bhansali has appeared on behalf of the respondents, and has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. It has been urged by him that the appeal is directed against an interim order vacating an exparte stay granted earlier which does not fall within the ambit of the term judgment occurring in Cl. 18 of the Ordinance. In support of his contention Mr. Bhansali has relied on State vs. Hindo Open Sugar Mills (1).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while frankly conceding that the view taken in Hindo Open Sugar Mills case (supra) is against him, submitted that the point requires reconsideration in view of authorities of other High Courts. Consequently, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

3. For a correct appraisal of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant it would be proper to state a few facts giving rise to this appeal. The appellants case as set out in the writ petition is that he was holding the post of Motor Trolly Fitter under the Assistant Public Works Inspector Northern Railway. Bikaner. It is alleged that by an order dated October 24 1978 the appellant was ordered to be reverted to the post of hammer-man, but by a subsequent order dated December 15, 1978 he was directed to continue on temporary labour application basis as a pipe fitter. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 44 of 1979) challenging the order of his reversion dated October 24, 1978, wherein an order for maintaining status-quo was passed in his favour. But when the opposite party placed before the Court the subsequent order dated December 15, 1978 posting him as a Pipe-Fitter, the appellant withdrew the writ petition, and filed the present writ petition out of which this appeal arises. In this writ application too he filed an application on February 23, 1979 (No 202 of 1979) praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to maintain status-quo till the decision of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by his order dated February 26, 1979 directed that status-quo may be maintained as existing on that day. On September 5, 1979 the appellant submitted a second stay application (No. 937 of 1979) in which it was prayed that the non petitioners may be restrained from making appointment in the post of Motor-Trolly Fitter. Both the stay applications came up for final orders on November 2, 1979. On stay application No. 973 of 1979, the learned Judge directed that one post of Motor Trolly Fitter-cum-Driver shall not be filled untill the decision of the writ petition, whereas on the earlier stay application No. 202 of 1979 the learned Judge vacated the ad-interim stay order passed on February 26,1979, against which this appeal has been preferred.

4. We have purposely given above a short narrative of the proceedings in order to show that no rights of the parties have been decided by the impugned interim order dated November 2.1979 vacating the exparte stay order dated February 26, 1979- nor any points of controversy between the parties have been determined. It appears to us, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the counter filed by the non-petitioners to the writ petition, it was pleaded inter alia that the petitioner had already been transferred as Pipe Fitter on December 15. 1978, and, therefore, there was no question of his being continued as a Motor Trolly Fitter in pursuance of the order of the Court which only directed that status-quo may be maintained. Affidavit of one Mr. Bava Singh, Assista

Click Here to Read the rest of this document