The Court should not pass interim orders tantamount to final relief without justification and recording reasons. Employees appointed on an ad hoc basis have no right to the post, and the presumption of merit in their appointments can be rebutted by evidence.

( 1 ) THESE Special Appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8. 12. 2004 staying the operation of the order dated 30th October, 2004 passed by the District judge, Baghpat, by which the services of the respondent-employees stood terminated.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these Appeals are that the said respondent-employees had been appointed as Stenographers vide order dated 29th May, 2003 along with four others, with a clear stipulation in their appointment letters that it was purely an ad hoc and temporary appointment, liable to be terminated at any time without notice. The said respondent-employees joined the services in pursuance of the said appointment letters. However, as the work of the employees was not found satisfactory, vide letter dated 17th March, 2003 (Annex. 2) the District Judge asked them to learn/improve and the Senior Administrative Officer was directed to test them periodically and submit the progress report. The employees however did not show any improvement whatsoever and did not learn the shorthand and typing even though extension of time was granted time and again. Several progress reports, i. e. reports dated 17. 8. 2004, 14. 9. 2004 and 26. 10. 2004, (Annexures 3, 4 and 5) were submitted to the District judge to show that they were not making any improvement and did not know the shorthand at all. The matter was reported, to the High Court on the Administrative Side and the Honble the acting Chief Justice vide order dated 20. 9. 2004 directed the matter to be placed before the honble Administrative Judge of that District for passing appropriate orders. The Administrative judge, after considering the entire case, directed the District Judge to take appropriate action as he may deem fit, and in pursuance thereof, the services of the respondent-employees stood terminated vide order dated 30. 10. 2004 (Annex. 8 ). Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the said employees filed Writ Petition Nos. 51562 and 52224 of 2004, wherein the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the order dated 30. 10. 2004. Hence, these Special Appeals.

( 3 ) SRI Sudhir Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Amit Sthalker, advocate, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the services of the said employees had been terminated in terms of their appointment letters as they had been appointed on ad hoc basis with the clear stipulation that their services were liable to be terminated any time without notice. There was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to stay the operation of the order dated 30th october, 2004, Moreso, the relief granted by the learned Single Judge amounted to final relief which could not have been granted at the interim stage.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-employees submitted that the services of the employees had been terminated without any enquiry or giving a show cause notice. They had been awarded good entries and overlooking the same, their services stood terminated, and therefore, the order dated 30. 10. 2004 is mala fide; the learned Single Judge has rightly stayed the operation of the said orders and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the said order.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE Honble Apex Court has consistently held that the Court should not pass an interim order which amounts to a final relief. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief has to be adjudicated upon at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. The Court should not pass an interim order without considering the issues of public interest, balance of convenience, as to whether prima facie case is made out; as to whether the party concerned could be compensated in terms of money etc. , and other relevant considerations. [vide Assistant Collector of Cen