JUDGMENT : This application has been filed by defendants no. 1 to 4 of a title suit filed by opposite party no. 1, for an ORDER :of injunction on defendants no. 1 to 4 restraining them from giving effect to a decision of the Cabinet dated the 11th June, 1968. [It is stated that a number of amendments have been permitted to be made in the plaint, although the original plaint does not yet show the amendment allowed]. By ORDER :passed on the 16th July, 1968, the trial court passed an ad interim ORDER :of injunction, by which the ORDER :of the Cabinet, mentioned above, was not to be given effect to during the pendency of the suit. That ORDER :has been affirmed by the court of appeal below on an appeal filed by all the defendants, except defendant no. 9. The court of appeal below has concurred in holding that a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiff in his favour for grant of ad interim injunction and that balance of convenience lies in affirming the ORDER :of the trial court. The court of appeal below has also held that if ad interim injunction is not granted, the type of injury that the plaintiff will suffer will not be easily remedied. 2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the ORDER :s passed by the courts below are wrong and that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of passing an ORDER :of injunction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has supported the ORDER :s passed by the courts below. 3. I shall now state the relevant facts. It is stated that the plaintiff had been appointed as an overseer in 1949 in the Public Works Department and was confirmed in his service in 1954. In the year 1963-64 there were 22 vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by promotion from the overseers. It is stated that the Government in the Public Works Department referred certain cases of overseers to the Public Service Commission for consideration of promotion. The Public Service Commission submitted names of 31 overseers to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers and it is said that the Government in the Public Works Department promoted 17 overseers as Assistant Engineers. The Public Service Commission submitted names of 31 overseers to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers and it is said that the Government in the Public Works Department promoted 17 overseers as Assistant Engineers. Out of the list submitted by the Public Service Commission, 5 more overseers were provisionally promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers. Thereafter, Government referred the cases of 7 other overseers to the Public Service Commission for consideration of their promotion. This list included the names of defendants no. 5 to 8. The Public Service Commission, it is said, had called for cases of all overseers superseded and the Government had referred all such cases to the Public Service Commission as desired by the latter. Thereafter, the Commission sent list of 45 overseers, in ORDER :of seniority, whom it considered fit for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineers on temporary basis. In that list the plaintiff's name was included as against serial no. 2. The names of defendants no. 5 to 9 were also included, but below the plaintiff's name. It is stated, however, that the Council of Ministers did not select the plaintiff by their ORDER :dated the 11th June, 1968, although they selected defendants no. 5 to 9. Thus this suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the 14th June, 1968. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the JUDGMENT :s of the courts below, I am of the opinion that ad interim injunction in the suit has wrongly been granted by the courts below. This application should succeed on the ground that it has been erroneously held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. According to the court of appeal below the inconvenience that would be caused by the fact of the delay in the promotion of defendants no.5 to 9 would be negligible, as no appreciable dislocation in the work of the Government on that score will ensue. In my opinion, this is not a proper approach to the case at all. There is bound to be dislocation of work, if speculation is permissible in this contest, as by an ORDER :or restraint, a number of overseers will not be able to work in the rank of Assistant Engineers for quite a long time. In my opinion, this is not a proper approach to the case at all. There is bound to be dislocation of work, if speculation is permissible in this contest, as by an ORDER :or restraint, a number of overseers will not be able to work in the rank of Assistant Engineers for quite a long time. If the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, he will obtain the relief prayed for and it is difficult to uphold the finding of the court of appeal below that the injury that the plaintiff may suffer by failure to obtain ad interim injunction will be, more or less, irreparable. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has referred to the Rules relating to the Bihar Engineering Service, Part III, under the heading "Promotion of Officers already in Government Service", and to a memorandum of the Government of Bihar in the Appointment Department of the year 1966 from which certain quotations have been given by the court of appeal below in Paragraph 31 of its ORDER :. I do not think that at the present moment, this matter should be decided, as any conclusion given on the Rules and the notification may have repercussions on the merit of the suit itself. In my opinion at the present stage, the matter under consideration should be decided on the footing as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff in his favour and what will be the balance of convenience in favour of or against the respective parties. Even assuming that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour at this point of time, I am of the opinion that the courts below have acted with material irregularity in holding that balance of convenience lies in granting an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining defendants no. 1 to 4 from giving effect to the Cabinet decision dated the 11th June, 1968. Whether the plaintiff should obtain his relief in the suit or not is a different matter and the parties will put forward their respective contentions which will be finally considered at the trial of the suit. 5. For the reasons given above this application is allowed and the ORDER :, passed by the two courts below granting ad interim injunction are vacated. 5. For the reasons given above this application is allowed and the ORDER :, passed by the two courts below granting ad interim injunction are vacated. In the circumstances of the case, however, parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court. Application allowed