THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WA.No.1204 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed in WVMP No.3975 of 2008 in WPMP No.26564 of 2008 in WP No.12841 of 2008. 02. The appellants herein are the vacate stay petitioners- respondents and respondents herein are the writ petitioners. 03. The writ petitioners were employed as Junior Engineers by the 1st respondent way back in the year 1991. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 19.1.2001 and by an order dated 3.2.2001 the posts were abolished. Challenging the same, the writ petitioners filed WP Nos.4297 and 4337 of 2001 and the same are pending. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notification dated 12.06.2008 calling for applications. Questioning the same, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition. 04. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 26.6.2008 staying operation of the impugned notification. Hence, WVMP is filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the said order. 5. A learned single Judge of this Court having observed that the writ petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of continuation of the interim order and the grounds advanced by respondents are not convincing the Court to vacate the interim order, apart from the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the services of the petitioners are availed, at least, on adhoc basis, dismissed the WVMP. Questioning the said dismissal order, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 06. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the writ petitioners are not qualified to hold the posts as they do not possess the required qualifications as stipulated in the notification. He further submits that the learned single Judge ought not to have dismissed the WVMP as the work had already been completed by the department by getting an Executive Engineer on deputation and the dismissal of the vacate stay petition is un-warranted. He further submitted that the notification in question is kept in abeyance. 07. On the other hand, while opposing the contention of the learned Advocate General, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that even though the writ petitioners are eligible as contemplated in the impugned notification, they were not given the re-employment, but the appellants-institution had recruited outsiders. He further submitted that instead of calling for higher qualification, the respondents-writ petitioners may be given the opportunity to finish the work. 08. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 09. Evidently, it is for the institution to advertise and call for applications by prescribing qualifications suitable to undertake and complete the work. Admittedly, the respondents-writ petitioners have questioned the notification only, in the above writ petition, which they do not have any right, inasmuch as it is for the institution to prescribe the requisite qualifications peculiar to the nature of work akin to the institution. Further, the work had already been completed by an Executive Engineer, who was brought on deputation, which is not disputed by the respondents, during the period for which the notification was kept in abeyance. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we feel that cause in the main writ petition does not survive for adjudication, and hence the writ petition is dismissed and the order under this appeal is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to agitate their rights, if any, in the earlier writ petitions filed by them in WP Nos.4297 and 4337 of 2001. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. ___________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI rkk/kvrk Dated:13-10-2009 _______________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY