Judgment 1. The appellant is the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, a statutory body under the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Council). The contesting respondent is one Pramod Kumar working on the post of a Deputy Secretary with the Council. The cause to file the writ petition arose, as the respondent-petitioner asserts, the absorption into service and the promotion given to him by the Council was illegally recalled after 22 years of service with the latter. That it was done, is not denied but made an issue, that it could be done. 2. Initially, before deputation and absorption, the respondent-petitioners had been recruited by and in service of the Patna University. The Council had been structured, virtually, by employees brought on deputation. 3. The facts are given in the petitioner-respondents writ petition. Paragraph 1 reads : "That, this application is being filed against highly wrongful and illegal order, dated 13.03.2003 passed by respondent No. 3 by which after 22 long years of absorption and promotion of petitioner by the Board of Council without holding any enquiry the respondents have not only held that his absorption and promotion given by the Board of the Council is illegal but after 22 years of service in Intermediate Council where the petitioner has been duly promoted by the Board has been sent back to his original place of appointment in P.U. although lien of petitioner against that post has already came to end, in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of law, on the other hand other persons who too were absorbed and promoted along with the petitioner have been retained by the respondents." 4. The counter-affidavit does not reply to the petition paragraph by paragraph but the submission made by the Council in Paragraph 23 does confirm on what the issue is about. The Council states : "That the petitioner was not only wrongly absorbed in the Council but was also wrongly given promotion in the Council. The law is well-settled that if the foundation falls, the superstructure undisputedly falls on the ground. In the aforesaid peculiar situation due to wrong/incorrect and conditional absorption of the petitioner in the Council, which conditions are still not fulfilled, the petitioners services has been returned to his parent organisation, the inadmissible land illegal the claim of the petitioner that he has been promoted to higher posts is wholly immaterial. In the aforesaid peculiar situation due to wrong/incorrect and conditional absorption of the petitioner in the Council, which conditions are still not fulfilled, the petitioners services has been returned to his parent organisation, the inadmissible land illegal the claim of the petitioner that he has been promoted to higher posts is wholly immaterial. Thus, the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent organisation is legal, proper and valid." 5. In the petition, the Council is an opposite-party. The issue and the facts as presented are that the petitioner (respondent in the appeal) was absorbed in the services of the Council and had been given a promotion. The Council, on the other hand, submits that both the absorption and the promotion were wrongly given. That absorption and promotion were granted is accepted. It should not have been given. These are issues. 6. On this, the learned Judge in jurisdiction felt that issues are debatable. The writ petition was admitted. At the time of admission on 25 November, 2003 the following order was passed : "After hearing learned counsel for the parties I think that present is the matter which needs a detailed hearing. The petition is admitted for hearing. The effect and operation of the order directing repatriation of the petitioner from Intermediate Council to Patna University shall remain in abeyance till disposal of this matter.Sd. R.S. Garg, J. 7. Now, the Council has filed a Letters Parent Appeal to challenge the order of the learned Judge with a prayer that the Letters Patent Appeal be admitted and the order of the learned Judge admitting the writ petition be set-aside. A certificate is given by the Advocate for the appellants to state that "It is certify (sic) that grounds set forth in this appeal are good grounds for Letters Patent Appeal". 8. On this, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner took a preliminary objection, to the effect, that nothing has been pointed out on what exactly is the illegality in the order which has been passed on the writ petition. The effect of the order is that the Court has certified that indeed there are issues and the writ petition needs to be heard. Learned counsel in his preliminary objection pointed out to the Court that the ground for maintaining the Letters Patent Appeal is mentioned in Paragraph 15 of the appeal. The effect of the order is that the Court has certified that indeed there are issues and the writ petition needs to be heard. Learned counsel in his preliminary objection pointed out to the Court that the ground for maintaining the Letters Patent Appeal is mentioned in Paragraph 15 of the appeal. It is stated in this paragraph : "That it is respectfully submitted that since hearing of the writ petition is not likely to take place in near future and it may take years, the effect of the interim order in fact amount to allowing of the writ petition itself without deciding the matter on merit and as such the appellants have been advised to move this Hon ble Court in appeal against the impugned order." 9. The preliminary objection taken against the Letters Patent Appeal is not unfounded. 10. The Letters Patent Appeal jurisdiction itself rests on: justice, equity and good conscience. There were certain questions which were put to the appellants. These were: Was the learned Judge wrongly seized of the matter which was before him in the writ petition? Was he without jurisdiction? Was he not vested with the discretion and jurisdiction to pass an ad interim order? Did he commit any mistake, error, manifest or otherwise in admitting the case and passing an ad interim order? Is it to be understood that petition could be admitted but a stay order should not have been granted? On these the Court received no satisfactory answers. 11. On the issues presented by the Council itself, it is clear that if the absorption and the promotion are set-aside the respondent-petitioners would be out on the road and lose their job. The fact that his job was given validly is not an issue. That there was a deputation is also not in issue. That the services led to absorption and a consequential promotion are also not in issue. That absorption and consequential promotion were, subsequently, felt as not validly granted, is now made an issue. At best these are issues between the parties. 12. In fact, the primary question is can a powerful bodies like the Council and the University litigate. Between the Bihar Intermediate Education Council and the Patna University, both statutory authorities, creating issues and pitching their powers against each other is bureaucracy taking on bureaucracy. The respondent-petitioners are only being sandwiched in issues between two public bodies. 12. In fact, the primary question is can a powerful bodies like the Council and the University litigate. Between the Bihar Intermediate Education Council and the Patna University, both statutory authorities, creating issues and pitching their powers against each other is bureaucracy taking on bureaucracy. The respondent-petitioners are only being sandwiched in issues between two public bodies. The Court in jurisdiction will resolve the issues during hearing. 13. The fact that the hearing of a petition may take years or that the case may remain pending for a long time cannot be a ground for setting aside an ad interim order in the writ petition or questioning the discretion of a Judge under jurisdiction to pass an ad interim order. The real symptom and the disease is within the public justice system. There is no fault in the jurisdiction and the discretion of the learned Judge, in division, to admit a case and grant an ad interim relief. 14. Uncontrolled and indiscriminate filing of cases leads to a docket explosion. The fault is not with the jurisdiction and discretion of a learned Judge. If the Court works under capacity without the Judge-man power it affects the hearing and decision the cases. Disposal is a wrong and incorrect word for a public justice system. Hearing is the spirit of justice. 15. If for more than six long years that this High Court functions without its full strength of Judges. The delay in hearing of cases is a logical consequence. The fact that appointments from a particular category do not come through for these long years is itself a matter of concern that in the past the High Court has functioned on an average with one third of its judge strength missing. But this is not the place to discuss why appointments do not happen on the benches of the Patna High Court. The process of recommendation has a long passage and the progress does not happen as fast as it should. 16. Then, what may be the fault of the Judge in division who admits the case for hearing because in his discretion the matter indeed does present issues and the need to pass an ad interim order as protection to the petitioners who were sent on deputation. 16. Then, what may be the fault of the Judge in division who admits the case for hearing because in his discretion the matter indeed does present issues and the need to pass an ad interim order as protection to the petitioners who were sent on deputation. If the services of the petitioners are so affected to deny them bread and butter so as to affect their life and liberty in being put out of service, when entry into service is not in question, the rest are issues for hearing. How can the Court in its appellate jurisdiction ignore the cardinal factor on which this jurisdiction rests, Law, equity and good conscience, to certify that the learned Judge was wrong in admitting the case and thereafter granting a stay order? The Council has, in effect, submitted that the Judge may admit the case but not grant a stay order. Will this Court put a rhetorical question? Was the Judge not in jurisdiction to admit the case? Was he not vested with jurisdiction to grant an ad interim order, also? He was. 17. This appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.