WPSS No. 1975/2005 Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought the relief in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 02- 12-2005 passed by respondent no.2 which is annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the interim relief application the petitioner has prayed to stay the impugned dismissal order dated 02-12- 2005 passed by the respondent no.2 which is annexure-2 to the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition this Court vide order dated 22-12-2005 has ordered as follows: In the meantime, the order dated 02-12-2005 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the relief which was sought in this petition has already been given by way of interim relief and as such relief cannot be granted. I am fortified with views taken by the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramona Perher (KM), (1994) 6 SCC p/1, Tamil Nadu DR M.G.R. Medical University Vs. Meenakshi Ammal Trust and Another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC p/694 and State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC p.733. Apart this, it has been held that in case of termination, reversion and other such matters, the interim relief is not an appropriate relief at the initial stage as it would amount to allow the petition at the initial state. In case an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same. The Apex Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Suman Dutt (2000) 10 SCC p/311 has held that in such case no such relief can be granted. The Apex Court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and another 2003 (4) SCC p/104 has held as under:- “38.From the abovementioned decisions, it is evident that this Court has consistently been of the view that by way of an interim order the order of suspension, termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed being the pendency of the proceedings in the court.” In view of the above I find that the stay granted by this Court on 22-12-2005 is liable to be vacated. Therefore, the interim order dated 22-12-2005 is hereby vacated. (J.C.S.Rawat,J.) 14-09-2009 Bhasker