W. A. No.966/2011 20.9.2011 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who was the petitioner. By the impugned interim order dated 2.9.2011 learned Single Judge has refused to stay the appointments pursuant to the process of interview and selection, however, by that order the selection has been made subject to the final decision of the writ petition. This appeal prays for stay of appointments. For granting any kind of interim order there are two considerations, namely prima facie case and balance of convenience. If the appointments are stayed the appellant does not gain anything because he does not get appointment and salary by virtue of stay of the appointments. On the other hand the prospective selected candidates/appointees will loose the salary which would be paid to them during pendency of the writ petition. Thus, balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any good ground for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (K. K Trivedi) Acting Chief Justice Judge AK