1 55 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.505/2010 Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. Vs. Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki & Ors. Date of Order :: 18th August 2010. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.G.R.Punia, for the appellants. Dr.P.S.Bhati, for respondent No.1. Mr.Girish Joshi, for respondent No.5. ..... BY THE COURT The learned counsel Dr.P.S.Bhati appears for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Mr.Girish Joshi puts in appearance for the proforma respondent No.5. At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing while dispensing with the service on the other proforma respondents Nos. 2 to 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief in CWP No. 6760/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge, while following the orders earlier passed in other similar cases, though posted the matter for final hearing but directed that the writ-petitioner shall not be retired 2 from service in pursuance of the order that has been questioned in the writ petition; and that the petitioner shall continue to work and will be paid the regular pay of his services. At the outset, it is pointed out that in relation to similar nature interim orders as passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the similar and akin dispute regarding age of superannuation, this Court has taken the view in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.447/2010 (Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology & Anr. Vs. L.L. Sharma & Ors.), decided on 02.08.2010 that even if the petitioner is able to make out an arguable case that is not, by itself, decisive of the question of grant of interim relief; and the other fundamental and essential factors, of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, cannot be considered existing in favour of the writ petitioner. In the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2010, this Court said,- “Taking a comprehensive view of the matter with reference to the frame of writ petition and the contentions of the parties, it is but apparent that as at present, the petitioners suggest deduction of the result that age of superannuation has been enhanced in relation to the employees like them in the appellant- University; and prayers have been made for striking out the provisions to the contrary; and directions have been sought against the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. Whether such directions are required to be issued or not, is definitely a matter for consideration in the pending writ petitions but then, pending such adjudication, the present operating position of the statute governing the appellant-University and thereby its employees could not have been ignored. We are clearly of opinion that such nature interim order could not have been passed 3 whereby the appellant-University was forced to continue with the writ petitioners beyond the present age of superannuation applicable in the appellant- University. In the matters of present nature, we are clearly of the view that even if the petitioners are able to make out an arguable case that is not by itself decisive of the question of grant for interim relief because the very fundamental and essential factors of balance of convenience and irreparable injury cannot be considered existing in favour of the writ petitioners. On the other hand, in the event of success in the writ petition, the Court is always competent to pass appropriate orders and for that matter, even to mould the relief if so required.” The principles aforesaid directly and unfailingly apply to the present case too. Hence, following the decision aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside but with the similar nature observations as made in the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2010 that we are not making any comment that might have bearing on the merits of the controversy; that the writ petition shall be expected to be taken up for final hearing expeditiously; and that consideration of the writ petition shall not be deferred on any request for adjournment on behalf of the appellant-University. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ. s.soni