JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant petitioner against the order dated 17.12.1998 passed in appeal by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Civil Case No. 152/98 and also the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) No. 1, Bharatpur in Civil 5 Case No. 19/98. 2. Counsel for the State petitioner submits that by granting the interim injunction, the main prayer as made in the suit itself has been granted. 3. The respondent Yadram plaintiff had filed a suit with an application for temporary injunction stating therein that he belonged to backward class and was possessing the qualification of Senior Higher Secondary and passed the B.PEd. in the year 1996. He had applied in response to the advertisement issued in 1997-98 for the vacancies of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. It was stated that the select list was prepared and the name of the plaintiff had appeared at Sr. No. 67, but he was not given appointment even though the persons lower in merit had been given appointment. But the petitioner defendant had opposed the application for interim injunction on the ground that the Amrawati University was not a recognised university by the Government of Rajasthan and the degree obtained by the present plaintiff of B.P.Ed. had not been treated as equivalent to graduation by the State Government as per circular dated 9.4.1997. 4. The trial court vide the order impugned had allowed the interim injunction and directed that till the decision of the original suit, the plaintiff be given appointment on the basis of the qualifications and he be not prevented from getting his salary and other allowances. The order of the trial court was challenged in appeal and the appellate court had dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the trial court. 5. It is the submission of the State of Rajasthan that for the relief which was to be given in the main suit of appointing the plaintiff against the post in the application of interim injunction has been granted and thus, both the courts have exceeded the jurisdiction. There was no balance of convenience or prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and that in any case if ultimately the plaintiff would have succeeded, he could have been compensated by way of damages or back salary etc. 6. There was no balance of convenience or prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and that in any case if ultimately the plaintiff would have succeeded, he could have been compensated by way of damages or back salary etc. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners. I am inclined to agree with the petitioner that in the circumstances of the case until and unless not only prima facie case is made out, but it is also shown that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by way of damages, the relief as awarded in the application for interim injunction of appointment against the post, merits of which was still to be determined in the civil suit, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this court in the case of Chief General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors., 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 347 on the proposition that while adjudicating on application for temporary injunction, no interim relief deciding main controversy can be granted. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the revision petition and hold that both the courts have travelled beyond their jurisdiction in granting the temporary injunction. The impugned orders are set aside and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is dismissed. 9. The revision petition is allowed.Revision Allowed. *******