S. S. Sodhi, J.

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.

In the writ petition, the prayer' of Dayavati Khanna was "pay salary to the petitioner of the post of Additional Director of Education with effect from 20th March, 1991."

3. WHEN the matter came up before the learned Single Judge for interim relief, by his order of April 29, 1993 (the learned Single Judge directed that Dayvati Khanna be paid salary as Additional Director with effect from March 20, 1991 namely, the main relief in the writ petition. Not only this, the learned Single Judge went further and