Per Hon™ble Mr. B.C.Patel Chief Justice (Oral) 1. After hearing both sides namely the appellant and the respondent, Division Bench by an order dated 14-02-2002 stayed the operation of the Judgement. Once the interim orders were passed after hearing both the sides except in the change of the circumstances there is no reason to entertain an application for modifying the order. The party claiming that it is likely to face difficulties, it was open to make request to the court for early hearing of the matter. Learned Judges were aware about the situation and therefore while passing the order observed that even matter will be taken earlier if request is made jointly by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not the case of the applicant that both the sides requested jointly to the Division Bench and the matter could not be taken up for hearing. 2. Because of the nature of the order learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before us that the applicant has a right to file an application as there is violation of fundamental right namely right to life. Rights which are conferred on the applicant under the Constitution ought to have been pointed out to the Division Bench while hearing the application. Having found no substance, the court has stayed the judgement. It will be for the court of hearing the matter finally to confirm or vary the final order which was passed after hearing the parties appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the judgement in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. : reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 and A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak and Anr. Reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1531 it is the duty of the respondent not to deprive the person of fundamental right namely right to life. 4. Learned counsel submitted that interim orders are subject to charge as indicated earlier after hearing both the parties. When the orders are passed by the court ordinarily it is not required to be changed unless there is change in circumstances. 5. In the instant case from the record it appears that the original petitioner was appointed in 1967 as a clerk. There is also an order of termination. When the orders are passed by the court ordinarily it is not required to be changed unless there is change in circumstances. 5. In the instant case from the record it appears that the original petitioner was appointed in 1967 as a clerk. There is also an order of termination. According to the learned counsel for the Union of India, she was appointed temporarily and in 1970 her services were terminated. After an order of termination this applicant has kept quit for a pretty long period and in the year 1985 moved this court by filling SWP 879/85 which was decided by judgement and order on 05-08-1986 which is on the record of the appeal at page 101. We were taken through the judgement by the learned counsel for Union of India. The Division Bench after a period of 16 years directed to decide the representation in para 5 as under:- In taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration we direct the respondents shall furnish representation was rejected to the petitioner and indicate reason for the rejection of her representation about terminating her services, in case the said representation has not been disposed of till date the same shall be disposed of within two months from today and order of disposal to be conveyed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed to the passing of the order given in above.� The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 6. After a long period thereafter in the year 1990 the petitioner filed another petition being SWP No. 726/1990. There it was pointed out about the school certificate but in order to resolve the controversy the learned Judge through it proper to allow the petitioner to produced the certificate regarding her having passed matriculation and respondents thereafter to look into the criteria that was being followed by them at the relevant time for making appointment to the post of the clerk. The court observed that in case the petitioner fulfills the criteria as laid down by the competent authority at the relevant time there will be no hitch for the respondents to appoint her again, irrespective of age bar because she has already served the department. The order was made on 09-07-1992. This petitioner filed contempt petition being COA No. 105/1993 which was decided on 07-03-1995. We were taken through the order in contempt application. The order was made on 09-07-1992. This petitioner filed contempt petition being COA No. 105/1993 which was decided on 07-03-1995. We were taken through the order in contempt application. From the record it transpires that as observed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt. Proceedings she was appointed vide order dated 22-05-1967 & was discharged on 19-10-1970 and the grievance was made that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard. In contempt proceedings respondents pointed out as to the manner in which they have followed the order made by the court earlier and pointed out that even she was not found eligible for appointment as a clerk as per the criteria laid down by them as applicant did not obtain the required percentage in the said examination. The court considered these aspects in detail. Learned counsel Mr. Sethi appearing before the court in the Contempt. Application made a submission with regard to method of destruction of record. On behalf of the applicant it was stated that destruction of record as stated by Mr. Sethi is not correct. The court considered the enquiry report and ultimately found that respondents have complied with the mandate of Court and contempt petition came to be dismissed. Therefore the earlier order made by the court was followed by the Union of India in its letter and spirit. The court while hearing the Contempt application accepted the case placed before the court by the Union of India. Against the judgement and order made in the contempt proceedings, the petitioner ultimately approached the Apex Court dismissed the application, copy of the order is placed on the record at page 111. All this material was placed before the Division Bench at the time of hearing earlier. 7. Considering all these aspects if the Division Bench has stayed the order made by the learned Single Judge, If at all petitioner was aggrieved the petitioner ought to have approached the higher forum. Learned counsel for the applicant-Original petitioner has produced no new material indicating the change in circumstances which would require this court to modify the order. The grounds were available to the applicant when the application was heard by Division Bench earlier. In our opinion this application is not at all tenable. Learned counsel for the applicant-Original petitioner has produced no new material indicating the change in circumstances which would require this court to modify the order. The grounds were available to the applicant when the application was heard by Division Bench earlier. In our opinion this application is not at all tenable. This application is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs 2000/- out of which Rs 1000/- will be paid to the Union of India and the remaining amount shall be paid to Advocates Welfare Fund.