JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the orders of the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 29.11.2000 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 59/2000 and dated 14.9.2000 of Addi. Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City, Jaipur (East) in Civil Misc. Case No. 203/99. Learned trial court has declined to grant temporary injunction In favour of the plaintiff petitioner under the order afore-stated which order has been confirmed in appeal by the Addl. Distt. Judge, hence this revision petition. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendant non- petitioner from terminating the services of the plaintiff petitioner. Pending the suit the prayer has been made for grant of temporary injunction. It is the case where as per the petitioner's own case he was appointed under order dated 16.7.1999 on the post of 'Pryogshala Parichar' on probation for two years. His service has been terminated before 4.8.99 i.e. date of filing of the suit and the application for grant of temporary injunction. His termination of services has been made on the ground that. he was not fulfilling the requisite eligibility and qualification prescribed for the post. The order of termination of his service has been made on 4.8.1999, but it is found by the court below that he came to know about this action on 3.8.1999. Otherwise also in such matters, no question does arise for grant of temporary injunction for the reasons; (1) that ordinarily an employee whose services have been terminated should not be allowed to continue in service by grant of temporary injunction; (2) it is the case of termination of service of a probationer on being found by the employer that he was lacking the requisite eligibility and qualification and in such matters to what extent ultimately the plaintiff respondent would succeed in the suit is highly doubtful. Otherwise also non-grant of temporary injunction in such matters will not result in causing any irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. If ultimately the plaintiff petitioner succeeds in the suit, the court has all the powers and competence to grant him all consequential benefits. Otherwise also non-grant of temporary injunction in such matters will not result in causing any irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. If ultimately the plaintiff petitioner succeeds in the suit, the court has all the powers and competence to grant him all consequential benefits. Another important aspect which though have not been addressed, noticed; considered and applied by the court below that in case this Interim relief is granted, then a person who is otherwise eligible for the post may be deprived of his appointment. He will continue on the post under temporary injunction order passed and after many years if the suit is dismissed that person who is deprive of his appointment cannot be compensated in terms of money. Taking into consideration this matter from any angle, I do not find any merits and substance in this revision petition. The services of the plaintiff petitioner were terminated on 4.8.1999 and after about three years, no question does arise for grant of temporary injunction. 3. Accordingly, this revision petition falls and the same is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 2,200/ 4. As a result of the dismissal of the revision petition, the stay application is also dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******