MC 1819/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The aforementioned misc. applications have been registered on tw o interim applications filed by the State of Manipur and others and Shri Hareshw ar Ghoswami (Misc. Case 1821/09) respondent No. 3 in WP(C) 267/09 [WP(C) 2810/20 09] respectively praying for vacation and/or modification of the order dated 1/6 /2009 passed in MC [WP(C)] 96/09 arising out of the aforementioned writ proceedi ng. I have heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. S harma, Advocate for the State of Manipur, Mr. B. Sahu, Advocate for the responde nt above named/applicant and Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Advocate for the writ petitione r. A narration in brief of the facts leading to the passing of the order dated 1/6/2009 is considered indispensable to better appreciate the rival arguments. The writ petitioner had approached this Court (Imphal Bench) wit h WP(C) 267/2009 impugning the order No. 3/1/95-SE(H/S)Pt. dated 24/4/2009 appoi nting her as in-charge Chairperson of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, on deputation for a period of three years or till the age of superannu ation whichever is earlier with effect from the date of her joining duty. This C ourt while issuing the notice of motion in the said proceeding on 27/4/2009 made it returnable within four weeks. Notice was also issued on the prayer for inter im relief seeking suspension of the order impugned making it returnable within s even days. However, in the interregnum status quo as on that date was directed t o be maintained. The petition was ordered to be listed after seven days. The petition, however, was listed again on 8/5/2009 which was evidently beyond t he period of seven days as intended by this Court. On that date i.e. 8/5/2009, h owever, this Court directed that the interim order would continue till Monday i. e. 11/5/2009. On that date i.e. 11/5/2009, the petition was ordered to be listed for admission hearing on 15/5/2009. This Court after hearing both the sides dir ected that the interim order would continue under further orders. While the events as above progressed, the Government of Manipur in the Departmen t of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) by order No. 25/3 /2005-MCS/DP dated 5/5/2009 transferred and posted the respondent/(Applicant in M.C. No. 1821/2009) as Additional Director of Education (Schools) in place of th e writ petitioner. Being aggrieved, she instituted WP(C) 267/2009 challenging th is order. On 1/6/2009, this Court issued notice making it returnable within thre e weeks. An interim application being Civil Misc. Application No. 96/2009 was also filed by the writ petitioner accompanying the w rit petition seeking suspension of the order dated 5/5/2009. By order dated 1/6/ 2009, the prayer was granted and the aforementioned order whereby the respondent /applicant herein had been transferred as Additional Director of Education(s) in place of the writ petitioner was stayed. As this order would reveal, the interi m relief was granted to the writ petitioner being satisfied that the order of st atus quo passed by this Court on 27/4/2009 in WP(C) 239/2009 had been extended b y another order dated 4/5/2009 which stood further extended upto 11/5/2009 by or der dated 8/5/2009. This Court, therefore, was prima facie of the view that on t he date on which the impugned order dated 8/5/2009 was passed transferring and p osting the aforementioned respondent as Additional Director of Education (School s) the interim restraint was in force. Mr. Mishra had submitted that while the State Government took st eps to comply with the order dated 1/6/2009, belatedly though, it sought for a r eview of the aforementioned order contending that in fact on 5/5/2009, the order of status quo passed on 27/4/2009 was not in force and, therefore, the order da ted 5/5/2009 had been legally passed. The said application for review being regi stered as Civil Review Petition No. 6 of 2009 was allowed vide order dated 8/6/2 009. It was pleaded that though the order extending the order of status quo in f act was passed on 8/5/2009, the order to that effect recorded it to have been re ndered on 4/5/2009. A Single Bench of this Court after hearing the learned Couns el for the parties involved, by order 8/6/2009 passed therein clarified in unequ ivocal terms that the interim order after 27/4/2009 was passed on 8/5/2009 and n ot 4/5/2009 and that the mentioning of the date 4/5/2009 was a clerical mistake. In other words, this Court clarified that the interim order of status quo after 27/4/2009 was extended on 8/5/2009 and not on 4/5/2009. It is on the basis of this rectification of dates that the appli cations in hand have been filed seeking vacation and/or modification of the orde r dated 1/6/2009 passed by this Court in M.C. 96/2009 arising out of WP(C) 267/2 009. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a scruti ny of the materials on record in the background of the facts as narrated hereina bove, this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the appli cants. A bare reading of the order dated 1/6/2009 in M.C. 96/2009 arising out of WP(C) 267/2009 demonstrates that the satisfaction of the Court arrived at in fa vour of granting the petitioner the interim relief was principally based on the perception that on the date of passing of the order on 5/5/2009, the interim ord er of status quo passed on 27/4/2009 was subsisting in view of the intervening o rder dated 4/5/2009. In the face of the clarification provided by this Court vid e its order 8/6/2009 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 6 of 2009 in my opinion , there is no scope of inferring in view of the clear language of the order date d 27/4/2009 that the interim order of status quo was in subsistence on 5/5/2009. In that view of the matter, the very basis of the interim order dated 1/6/2009 being non-existent on the face of the records, the prayer for vacation thereof, in the facts and circumstances of the case has sufficient force. In the above factual premise, on a totality of the consideration s based on contemporaneous records, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the order dated 1/6/2009 passed in M.C. 96/2009 arising out of WP(C) 267/2009 o ught not to be allowed to continue. It, therefore, stands vacated. In the result, the applications are allowed.