Judgment :- (Writ Appeal against the order of this court dated 13.7.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.4756 of 2005 in W.P.No.4473 of 2005.) P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Even though the matter has been listed for admission, on consent, the appeal itself has been taken up for disposal. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.7.2005. The entire order of the learned Single Judge is to the following effect: - "Party appeared in person. The interim direction sought for in this petition is ordered, subject to the result of the writ petition." The writ petition itself has been filed for issuing a certiorarified mandamus for quashing the action of the respondent in not including the name of the writ petitioner in the panel for promotion. The order dated 13.7.2005 passed in the direction petition, even though the writ petition itself is yet to be decided on merits, has the effect of granting the relief claimed in the main writ petition even before final decision is taken in the writ petition. 3. Law is well settled that in such matters, ordinarily, the court should not issue a positive direction granting the very relief which is claimed in the main case unless for very weighty reasons. Unfortunately, in the present case, the learned Single Judge has not given any reasons as to why such an extra-ordinary order was passed by simply observing that subject to the result of the writ petition, the person may be promoted which is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. While considering such matters, the court is required to consider the question of prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. If a person would be promoted and subsequently, the writ petition would be dismissed, the net result would be that such a person would be holding a higher post merely because of a wrong order passed. On the other hand, if ultimately, the writ petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, her right can be protected by promoting such person with retrospective effect with attendant benefits in which event, she would not suffer any irreparable loss. On the other hand, if ultimately, the writ petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, her right can be protected by promoting such person with retrospective effect with attendant benefits in which event, she would not suffer any irreparable loss. Therefore, in such matters, balance of convenience lies in favour of not granting, by way of interim order, the relief which can be given is only by considering the merits of the case at the time of final hearing. Without considering such aspects, the learned Single Judge has simply passed a non-speaking order giving direction for promotion. 4. In such view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is hereby set aside. While setting aside the order, we make it clear that in case the petitioner, ultimately, succeeds in the writ petition, she should be given the benefits of promotion with all attendant benefits such as payment of salary in the promotional post from the date on which the other persons were promoted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that the writ petition may remain pending for a long period and become infructuous. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition for final disposal within a period of three weeks. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. The connected W.A.M.P is closed.