JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two revision petitions though arise from two different suits. But the matter involved and comes for consideration is identical, thus same are taken for hearing together and are being decided by this common order. 3. For the decision of these matters, the facts are being taken from the revision petition No. 446/2002. 4. The plaintiff non petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Kota with the averments that on acquiring qualifications prescribed for the post of Lower Division Clerk, the defendant petitioners under order dated 13.9.1995 has given appointment to him against permanent post. It is stated that the service record of plaintiff non petitioner is neat and clean. 5. On 11.2.1998 a public notification was issued inviting applications for the temporary posts of L.D.C. in the regular pay scale. 6. In response to that notification, the plaintiff non petitioner submitted his application to the defendant petitioners. It is averred in the plaint he was in the service on the post of L.D.C. w.e.f. 13.9.1995 and prior to it from 1.1.1994 to 12.9.1995 as also there in establishment of the Engineering College as L.D.C. on muster roll. 7. The plaintiff non petitioner was called upon to appear in the written test held on 19.9.1998. The interview for the post was held on 28.9.1998. 8. It is submitted that the plaintiff non petitioner was given appointment w.e.f. 10.11.1998 till 21.3.1999 on temporary basis on the post of L.D.C. In the submissions of plaintiff non petitioner his name was kept in reserved list at serial No. 2. 9. In the suit an application for grant of temporary injunction has also been filed. The application of the plaintiff non petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code was allowed vide order dated 6.10.1999 by the trial Court and the defendant petitioners were directed to allow the- plaintiff petitioner to work as LDC with all consequential benefits. 10. The defendant petitioners felt aggrieved of the order afore stated of the trial court preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Kota which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Kota. This appeal was came to be decided by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota under his order dated 21.9.2001. The appeal was dismissed, hence these revision petitions. 11. This appeal was came to be decided by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota under his order dated 21.9.2001. The appeal was dismissed, hence these revision petitions. 11. Mr. A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant petitioners contended that the suit filed by plaintiff non petitioners was wholly misconeived and misplaced. For four posts of L.D.Cs. which were available/vacant in the College, the requisition was sent to the employment exchange. Against those four posts after selection four persons have been given the appointments. 12. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submits that after four appointments have been made the merit list stood exhausted automatically. 13. It has next been contended that the plaintiff non petitioner under order dated 19.9.1995 was given purely ado appointment for a fixed term. This appointment was conditional one i.e. for a period of three months or till the duly selected candidates is made available whichever is earlier. The terms of ado appointment of the plaintiff non petitioner was extended up to 12.7.1996 on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the original order. 14. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant petitioners urged that the ado appointment of the plaintiff petitioner no doubt was extended from time to time till 13.9.1998, but as the selected were made available his services were brought to an end in the afternoon on 28.9.1998 vide order dated 28.9.1998. Making reference to the order dated 9.10.1998. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submitted that the appointment given to the petitioner till 31.3.1999 was on contract basis. 15. In his submission as per the plaintiff non petitioner's own case his name was at serial No. 2 in the reserved list and all the four posts of L.D.Cs. were filled in, no right is accrued to him in the matter and thus none of his legal or fundamental right have been infringed. 16. Mr. Bhargava, submits that Mr. Surya Kant Sharma, the plaintiff non petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition No. 720/2001 as per his case as his name stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, he filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Kota and the temporary injunction as prayed. for has been granted, but that order of the Appellate Court has been stayed in that revision petition. 17. for has been granted, but that order of the Appellate Court has been stayed in that revision petition. 17. Lastly, it is contended that grant of temporary injunction in this matter resulted in grant of final relief as prayed for in the suit at this interlocutory stage which otherwise the court may or may not grant. Carrying this contention further Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submits that non grant of temporary injunction in such matter will not result in causing any irreparable injury to the plaintiff non petitioners. In case ultimately he succeeds (plaintiff non petitioner) in the suit all the consequential reliefs can be granted by the Court. 18. In contra Mr. Rajendra Soni and Mr. Rajveer Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff non petitioners submitted that the plaintiff non-petitioners have been given appointments and that facts goes to show that the posts were available. These appointment were given as the plaintiff non petitioners were selected for the post of LDC. Once they have been selected and appointments are given the same could not have been recalled or their services could not have been terminated. 19. In their submissions eight posts of L.D.Cs. are available in the College and the position of the plaintiffs non petitioners in these two revision petitions are undisputed at serial No. 1 and 2 in the waiting list, they have acquired a right to appointment in the service. 20. Lastly it is submitted that for all these years the plaintiff non petitioners in these two matters are working as L.D.C. under the court order. This position may not he disturbed and the trial court may be given direction to decide the suits expeditiously. 21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petitions and the orders of the Courts below and original record of case pertaining to the appointments of the plaintiff non petitioners which has been brought by Mr. Bhargava for perusal of the Court. 22. In Civil Revision Petition No. 446/2002 this court has not granted interim relief in favour of the college. But in Civil Revision Petition No. 720/2001 order of the First Appellate Court is stayed by this Court. 23. Bhargava for perusal of the Court. 22. In Civil Revision Petition No. 446/2002 this court has not granted interim relief in favour of the college. But in Civil Revision Petition No. 720/2001 order of the First Appellate Court is stayed by this Court. 23. I find sufficient merits in the contentions raised by the learned, counsel for the defendant petitioners that the requisition to the employment exchange was sent for four posts of L.D.Cs. From this fact reasonably an inference can be drawn that only four posts of L.D.Cs. were available to be filled in by the college. 24. Be that as it may, how many posts were vacant/available for making appointments after selection by the college is a highly disputed question of fact. Appointments are to be made only to the extent the number of the posts advertised or requisition was made. After appointments of the candidates from the merit list equal to the posts advertised or requisition was sent the select list or penal stand exhausted automatically. The candidates whose names are there in the reserved or waiting list do not acquire any legally enforceable right to come to the court and the court to grant relief under interim order giving the direction to the appointing authority to appoint him. The plaintiff non petitioners were in the service only on temporary/ad hoc basis. 25. It may be true that these two plaintiffs would have been given appointment by the petitioners on the basis of this list prepared or penal drawn, but it is an error or mistake committed by them. It is always open to the appointing authority to correct this error or mistake and that what precisely appears to have been done in the present case by the college. Merely on the basis of this appointment of the plaintiff by the college, though posts were not vacant, it will not give any right to them and consequential legal obligation upon the college to continue them in service. So long as, this mistake or error is not noticed, they continued in the service, but on correction or rectification of this mistake or error, only consequential order would have been to terminate their services and that has been done. 26. The matter of the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code is not a matter of course or rule. 26. The matter of the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code is not a matter of course or rule. It is a discretion of the Court to grant or may not grant the temporary injunction in favour of the party prayed for it. The very language of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, leaves no doubt that it is granted by the court under its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. 27. It is no more res Integral that the Civil Court does not have absolute un control power to grant the temporary injunction. It is permissible only where the party praying for grant of temporary injunction establishes to the satisfaction of the Court that he has a prima facie case in his favour, non grant of the temporary injunction may result in causing irreparable injury to him which cannot be compensated in terms of money and the balance of convenience also favours grant thereof. 28. Though having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the college prima facie, I am satisfied that the plaintiff non petitioners have failed to establish to the satisfaction of the Court any prima facie case in their favour, but non grant of temporary injunction will not result in causing any irreparable injury to the plaintiffs which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 29. The services of the plaintiffs have been terminated by the college. The employment has all the right to terminate the service of his employees in accordance with the law. Though its this action may be subject to judicial review by the court where it is questioned on termination of the services by the employee. It is not a case where the court has to come to rescue of this litigation at this stage and that too to the extent of grant of temporary injunction, that is to certain extent be a temporary injunction in the mandatory form. 30. Time and again their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the High court deprecated the practise of the courts subordinate to grant temporary injunction in the mandatory form which can be granted only in exceptionally rarest of the rare case. It is a case of termination of services of the plaintiff, that has been challenged by him in the Court by filing the suit. It is a case of termination of services of the plaintiff, that has been challenged by him in the Court by filing the suit. Ultimately on his success in the suit the Court has all the powers to grant him consequential service benefits. He will get pay and allowance without working on the post. It is a legal position on which there cannot be two views. Thus non grant of temporary injunction in such matters certainly will not result in causing any irreparable injury to the plaintiff. 31. The college is a creature of the statute and in case under the temporary injunction the employee whose services were terminated is allowed to continue in service, it will cause heavy financial burden upon it. Any additional financial burden is put, it may be decree mental to and may heavily costs to its teaching programme, meaning thereby to the students. 32. In the matter of grant of temporary injunction the court should not go wholly obvious of the adverse affect thereof on other party to the litigation. While considering and deciding the matter of grant of temporary injunction in the given case, it is concern of the court to see possible mischief, inconvenience, difficulty or loss to be suffered by other side. More so where the grant thereof in the given case may affect the public fund/exchequer the court should be very very slow to grant the temporary injunction or interim relief. 33. The learned trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and as a result thereof he is continuing in the service. When the petitioners ordered to continue him in the service by the Court the consequential obligation falls on the college to pay him salary and allowance etc. Ultimately, where the plaintiff fails in the suit, the college may suffer irreparable financial loss of payment of the salary, allowance and other benefits to the plaintiff. In that case, I have my own reservations whether the court can pass an order for return of money value of those benefits received by the plaintiff to the college. At that time that court may not pass this order having many other considerations. The plaintiff though ultimately may or may not be found entitled for this appointment, but as interim relief/temporary injunction has been granted, he will get and enjoy all the fruits. At that time that court may not pass this order having many other considerations. The plaintiff though ultimately may or may not be found entitled for this appointment, but as interim relief/temporary injunction has been granted, he will get and enjoy all the fruits. When the matter of termination of services of an employees is brought before the Civil Court, the normal rule may not to grant temporary injunction or interim relief. That way the temporary loss which is to be suffered by the plaintiff due to termination of his services on his success can be ordered to be compensated by the court. An interim relief which may result in grant of final relief at an interlocutory stage, it is seldom to be granted by the Civil Court. 34. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in catena of the decisions sounded a word of caution that ordinarily the court and the tribunal should be slow to grant the relief of the nature, which can be granted only on establishment of the case at the final stage by interim order at interlocutory stage. In a given case ultimately the court may or may not grant the relief prayed for in the suit. 35. In case of State of U.P. v. Visheshwar (1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 590) , it is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that grant of final relief in the form of interim order is not permissible to the courts. 36. In the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. Race shipping Trans Company, ( AIR 1995 SC 1368 ) , grant of interim order in substance giving the principle relief prayed for in the petition has been deprecated by their lordships of the Supreme Court. 37. In the case of Bharat Bhushan Sonaji v. Abdul K. Mohd., (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 593) , their lordships of the Supreme Court held that interim order passed pending writ petition having effect of allowing the writ petition is not proper. 38. In the case of Shiv Shanker v. Board of Director, (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 726) : [ 1995(7) SLR 85 (SC)] , it is observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court that grant of relief asked for in the writ petition by way of interim order is not proper. 39. In the case of Secretary & Commissioner Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 726) : [ 1995(7) SLR 85 (SC)] , it is observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court that grant of relief asked for in the writ petition by way of interim order is not proper. 39. In the case of Secretary & Commissioner Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, (1994 Suppl. (I) SCC 155) : [1993(5) SLR 585 (SC)] , their lordships of the Supreme Court held that interim order should not amount to grant of main relief which ultimately may or may not be granted in the writ petition. 40. The reference may also have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Burn Standing Company Ltd. v. Dina Bandu Majumdar, ( 1995(4) SCC 172 ) [ 1995(4) SLR 25 (SC)] . 41. The appointment of the plaintiffs were only on ado and temporary basis and that too of fixed term. A fixed term appointment comes to an end automatically by efflux of time, unless it is extended. A temporary and ado appointee does not acquire a right to hold the post. It is terminable even without notice or opportunity of hearing. The reference here may have to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M.P.S.H. Vikas Nigam v. Davendra Kumar Jain, ( 1995(1) SCC 638 ) . How so long a temporary appointee continues in service, he does not become permanent unless it acquires that status by force of any rule or is declared as permanent servant. The plaintiffs have come up with the grievance that their services have been teninnated. In such matters ordinarily the courts subordinate should not in exercise of their discretionary temporary injunction jurisdiction interim relief is not to be granted. Where interim relief is not granted in the judgment ultimately the claim put forward by the plaintiffs is found to be acceptable, the damages can be repaired by granting them are those monetary benefits which they would have received as they continue in the services. 42. In the case in hand, in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 446/2002, the learned trial Court the temporary injunction in the mandatory form directing the petitioners to continue the plaintiff in the service as L.D.C. and in his place no other person be appointed. It is further directed that plaintiff shall be entitled for the pay scale and other allowances as what he was getting earlier. 43. It is further directed that plaintiff shall be entitled for the pay scale and other allowances as what he was getting earlier. 43. In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 720/2001, the learned trial Court though has ordered that the plaintiff there is be given appointment on availability of the permanent post of the L.D.C. as per the reserved list prepared on 28.9.1998 and his previous services are to be regularised, the appellate Court has gone a step further and passed a mandatory temporary injunction directing the petitioners to give appointment to the plaintiff on the post of L.D.C. and to regularise his previous services. Grant of interim relief in the mandatory form otherwise also not permissible in such case. 44. Having gone through the orders passed by the courts below, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have been granted the final relief at the interlocutory stage by grant of temporary injunction in the mandatory form. In the matter of the challenge of the order of termination, dismissal or removal of the employees from the services the suit may be given priority in hearing, but not to grant temporary injunction thereby to permit them to continue in service pending disposal of the suit. 45. In case the orders of the courts below allowed to stand, it will certainly occasion a failure of justice and will cause irreparable injury to the defendant petitioners. It has to continue these two persons in service though their services have already been terminated. On their failure in the suit the court may not pass an order for the refund of all these benefits which they received during this period from the college or even where such an order is passed it may be very difficult for the college to recover it from them. Contrary to it in case the orders are quashed and set aside the plaintiff non petitioner will not suffer any irreparable injury. Where they succeed in the suits the court has all the power to grant them all consequential benefits. 46. Contrary to it in case the orders are quashed and set aside the plaintiff non petitioner will not suffer any irreparable injury. Where they succeed in the suits the court has all the power to grant them all consequential benefits. 46. Both learned counsel for the parties cited the case law in support of their contentions, but as the matter arises front the orders passed by the courts below on the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and nothing finally is to be decided on the merits of the suit, it is not necessary to refer, discuss and give the decision thereon. Whatever findings are recorded, observations are made and decision in given are only relevant and concerned to decide the applications filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction/interim relief. It is not final adjudication on the rights of the parties, which are to be gone into and decided in the suit. It is made clear that the learned trial Court to decide the suit without having been influenced by any of the observations, findings or decision in this order. 47. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. The order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3 Kota in C.M.A. No. 23/2000 and the order dated 6.10.1999 of the Civil Judge (JD) Kota City (South), Kota in C.M.A. No. 161/99 are quashed and set aside. Similarly order dated 1.2.2001 of the Additional District Judge No. 2 Kota in C.M.A. No. 12/2000 and that of Civil judge (JD) South, Kota dated 3.7.2000 in CMA No. 158/99 are quashed and set aside. However, in the facts of this case no order as to costs. 48. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The directions are to be scrupulously followed by the learned trial Court. Non compliance thereof will be seriously viewed. The compliance of the order is to be reported to this Court. In case the sits are not decided within the stipulated period, by the learned trial Court, the liberty is granted to the parties to apply for revival of the revision petitions by filing a simple note. Non compliance thereof will be seriously viewed. The compliance of the order is to be reported to this Court. In case the sits are not decided within the stipulated period, by the learned trial Court, the liberty is granted to the parties to apply for revival of the revision petitions by filing a simple note. As and when such a notice is filed by either of the parties, the Registry is directed to circulate the same along with main matter.Petitions allowed. *******