( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. AY Kogje for the petitioner, Mr. AK Clerk for respondent NO. 1,2 and Mrs. VD Nanavati for respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) IN Special Civil Aapplication, petitioner is praying for the following reliefs as per paragraph 22 (A) to (D) : "22 (A) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction quashing and setting aside the issuance of show cause notice dated 16. 02. 2003, issuance of chargesheet dated 06. 06. 2003 and inquiry proceedings as well as inquiry report and order of dismissal dated 1. 8. 2005. (B) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, or direction quashing and setting aside the sanction/approval granted by the respondent NO. 3 to th propose action of dismissal vide communication dated 30. 7. 2005. (C) Pending admission and final hearing and disposal of this petition to stay the implementation and operation of grant of proposal by letter dated 30. 7. 2005 and dismissal order dated 1. 8. 2005 and direct the respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as Lecturer as if the order impugned are not passed. (D) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper. " ( 3 ) THUS, in the main matter, petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated 16. 2. 2003, charge sheet dated 6. 6. 2003, inquiry proceedings , inquiry report and order of dismissal dated 1. 8. 2005 as well as the order of sanction granted by respondent No. 3 for dismissal of the petitioner vide communication dated 30. 7. 2005. As prayed for in paragraph 22 (C) of the petition, petitioner is also praying for staying implementation and operation of order granting sanction to dismissal by letter dated 30. 7. 2005 and dismissal order dated 1. 8. 2005 and for directing the rspondent NO. 1 to permit petitioner to discharge her duties as lecturer as if the orders impugned have not been passed. ( 4 ) ALLEGATIONS made against the petitioner are to the effect that upon assessment of some of the research work/writing presented by the petitioner, it appears that mostly copy has been made. 8. 2005 and for directing the rspondent NO. 1 to permit petitioner to discharge her duties as lecturer as if the orders impugned have not been passed. ( 4 ) ALLEGATIONS made against the petitioner are to the effect that upon assessment of some of the research work/writing presented by the petitioner, it appears that mostly copy has been made. It was also alleged that the petitioner has remained absolutely negligent towards the basic requirement of research in the institution, not only that, but amongst the research works presented by petitioner after 1995, it is alleged that the petitioner has extracted from the books/writings of certain other authors and has made an attempt to get them treated as her own research work. In short, it was alleged that it is not the research work which has been actually carried out by the petitioner independently and it amounts to negligence and to commit fraud and misrepresentation to the autority. Condition incorporated in the order of appointment has been violated and has not been complied with and has committed breach in performance of duties and liabilities. Similar allegations have been made in the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to make explanation. Reply thereto was given by the petitioner by letter dated 14. 4. 2003. On the basis of the show cause notice and reply given to said show cause notice, inquiry was initiated against petitioner. Ultimately, inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer Mr. Trivedi wherein the inquiry officer has come to the conclusion in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice as charges levelled against the petitioner have been found to be proved and allegations made against the petitioner have been made with a view to cause damage to the office bearers of the institution are also proved. Number of allegations made against the petitioner were proved and as regardz allegation of harrassmane to thepetitioner, that charge was not proved against the institution and complaint submitted to the UGC is found to be false. After considering the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, autority came to the conclusion that it is agreeing with the findings given by the inquiry officer, therefore, second show cause notice was given to which reply was given by the petitioner and after considering the same, decision was taken on 9. 2. After considering the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, autority came to the conclusion that it is agreeing with the findings given by the inquiry officer, therefore, second show cause notice was given to which reply was given by the petitioner and after considering the same, decision was taken on 9. 2. 2005 to dismiss the petitioner in the Governing Body of thepetitioner and thereafter, institution approached respondent No. 3 to grant approval to the decision of dismissal which was granted by respondent no. 3 by letter dated 30. 7. 2005 under section 51a of the Gujarat University Act and thereafter, order of dismissal dated 1st August, 2005 was passed by the Hon. Secretary, LD Bharatiya Sanskrit Vidya Mandir, Ahmedabad and thereafter petition is filed for the reliefs reproduced hereinabove. ( 5 ) INITILLY, this court issued notice on 12. 1. 2006 in the main matter. Thereafter, this Court issued rule on 14. 3. 2006. While issuing rule, no interim relief was granted by this court. Meaning thereby, interim relief was impliedly rejected by this Court. Further, though petitioner has prayed for interim relief as per para 22 (C) of the petition, same was not pressed impliedly by the petitioner at that time, otherwise, this court would have certainly passed some orders about interim relief. Therefore, it can be considered that this court has, after considering all the aspects of the matter, issued rule and refused interim relief as not specifically pressed by the petitioner though prayed in the memo of petition. Order for issuing rule in the main matter was passed by this court on 14. 3. 2006. ( 6 ) IN this back ground, by filing the present civil application, the petitioner is praying for grant of interim relief by making following prayes in this civil application as per para 7 (a) to 7 (c): "7 (a) To allow this application. (b) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of Special Civil Application NO. 17900 / 2005, to stay implementation and operation of order of dismissal dated 1. 8. 2005 annexed at Annexure-M with main petition. To pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstance of the case may require. " ( 7 ) THUS, by filing the present civil application, petitioner is praying to stay implementation and operation of order of dismissal dated 1. 8. 8. 2005 annexed at Annexure-M with main petition. To pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstance of the case may require. " ( 7 ) THUS, by filing the present civil application, petitioner is praying to stay implementation and operation of order of dismissal dated 1. 8. 2005 annexed at Annexure-M with main petition pending admission, final hearing and disposal of Special Civil Application NO. 17900 / 2005. On what basis the application is filed" It is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Kogje that in view of the subsequent development, present application for interim relief has been filed. Development which is narrated in para 3, 4 and 6 of the civil application is reproduced as under: "3. The applicant submit that the facts which ought to have come to the knowledge of the applicant during the pendency of the main application and also to substantiate the contention of the applicant regarding the false certificate produced by the respondent NO. 2 while getting his appointment and also to substantiate that in affidavit in reply of the respondent No. 1, the respondents have deliberately made false and misleading statement. 4. The applicant submits that subsequent to the admission of the main petition by this Hon ble Court, the applicant has received further communication dated 12. 4. 2006 from the Banaras Hindu University clearly stated that the certificate in question purportedly issued by Banaras Hindu University was not in fact issued by the said University or any of its department. Over and above this, even communication of one Kamalakar Mishra, who is the author of the certificate and has also given an affidavit in support of the respondent NO. 2 has communicated to the head of the department of Banaras Hindu University vide its letter dated 16th June, 2005 clearly stating that the certificate issued in his name does not bare his signature. Copy of said communication from the Banaras Hindu University is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- R. 1. 6. The applicant submits that last action against the respondent no. 1 is clear from the communication dated 27th September, 2006 by the Gujarat Vigilence Commissioner to the Commissioner of Higher Education. Copy of communication dated 27. 9. 2006 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R. 3. It is, therefore, pertinent to point out that the respondent NO. 6. The applicant submits that last action against the respondent no. 1 is clear from the communication dated 27th September, 2006 by the Gujarat Vigilence Commissioner to the Commissioner of Higher Education. Copy of communication dated 27. 9. 2006 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R. 3. It is, therefore, pertinent to point out that the respondent NO. 2, who is now proved to be a fraud is still in service whereas the present applicant, who had raised her voice against this respondent, is out of the service. This is a great miscarriage of justice which this Hon ble Court may set right by granting the interim relief. " ( 8 ) THUS, as per the aforesaid averments made by the applicant in present application,the applicant has received communication dated 12. 4. 2006 from the Banaras Hindu University which clearly stated that the certificate in question purportedly issued by Banaras Hindu University was not in fact issued by the said University or any of its department. Over and above this, even communication of one Kamalakar Mishra, who is the author of the certificate and has also given an affidavit in support of the respondent NO. 2 has communicated to the head of the department of Banaras Hindu University vide its letter dated 16th June, 2005 clearly stating that the certificate issued in his name does not bare his signature and last action against the respondent no. 1 is clear from the communication dated 27th September, 2006 by the Gujarat Vigilence Commissioner to the Commissioner of Higher Education and therefore applicant has pointed out that the respondent NO. 2, who is now proved to be a fraud is still in service whereas the petitioner who had raised her voice against this respondent is out of the service which is a great miscarriage of justice which this Hon ble Court should set right by granting the interim relief. It gives an impression to this court as if the petitioner is having personal fight/vengeance against respondent no. 2. Averments made by the applicant in this application before this court clearly go to show that the rspondent no. 2 has illegally obtained appointment on the basis of fraud and false certificate has been produced, meaning thereby, petitioner is making allegation against respondent no. 2 in the application and on that basis, seeking interim relief pending final disposal of the petition. 2 has illegally obtained appointment on the basis of fraud and false certificate has been produced, meaning thereby, petitioner is making allegation against respondent no. 2 in the application and on that basis, seeking interim relief pending final disposal of the petition. I fail to understand how these allegations against respondent no. 2 would be helpful to the petitioner for considering the case of the petitioner for interim relief and for setting aside the order of dismissal. Whether the appointment of respondent NO. 2 is legal or illegal or whether he has committed any fraud or not, it has no connection with the dismissal of the petitioner and order of dismissal against the petitioner is based on various allegations which have been found to be proved in departmental inquiry. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Kogje, this being subsequent facts having come to the notice of the petitioner subsequently, present application has been filed for interim relief. These facts are not of much relevance for considering the merits of the order of dismissal for the purpose of consideirng the grant of interim relief. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 and 2 both have filed reply in main petition. Copy thereof has been served to the petitioner. Petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. Affidavit filed by respondent NO. 2 is giving details about his academic career and is answering the allegations made by the petitioner. Relevant paragraphs of the reply filed by the respondents to the present application are reproduced as under: "10. Re : para 2: The averments and submissions contained therein are denied. The petitioner has tried to misdirect the honourable court by putting in various issues whichare not concerned with the disciplinary actions taken against her after due inquiry and after the approval of Vice Chancellor as per provisions of GU Act. The petitioners EB was also held up in 1995 due to her failure of to the research work. At that time, Late Prof. Ujamshi Kapadia was co-ordinator and there was no director then. This report is annexed as Annexure II of affidavit of Secretary LD II on 12. 9. 2005. I was not the Director then. 11. Re : Para 3 : The averments and submissions contained therein are denied. 12. Re : para 4 : The averments and submissions contained therein are denied. This report is annexed as Annexure II of affidavit of Secretary LD II on 12. 9. 2005. I was not the Director then. 11. Re : Para 3 : The averments and submissions contained therein are denied. 12. Re : para 4 : The averments and submissions contained therein are denied. The head of the department then in 1995-97 has already that I had taught in PG Department of Philosophy and religion in BHU the letter of Shri Kamlakar Mishra was produced in my affidavit dated 22. 12. 2005 as Annexure I. " ( 10 ) DR. UC Dubey, who has supplied the information is deadly against me and has removed my name without auhtority from the panel of experts for evaluation of Ph. D. thesis and the Vice Chancellor of BHU has rebuked (advised) Shri UC Dubey for the unauthorized act. I was again appointed for evaluation of the Ph. D. thesis of Department of Philosophy and religion. A true copy of the letter received from BHU dated 4. 8. 2006 is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-I. ( 11 ) I further state that the department has no record of the names of the teachers scholars who taught Jain Philosophy between 1986 " 1997. This was official reply given to me under RTI. Act 2005. The copy of the reply is annexed herewith as Annexure II. ( 12 ) DR. Kamlakara Mishra has also sent further communication stating that I did teach PG Classes between 1995097 and even earlies. A true copies of letters dated 10. 10. 2005 23. 8. 2006 and 1. 9. 2006 written by Shri Kamlakar Mishra is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-III collectively. ( 13 ) I hereby submit that the affidavits of those colleagues and students who were working with me and to whom I have taught 1. Dr. Rajjan Kumar S/o. RC Prasad aged about 42 years, teaching as reader of Philosophy in MJP Rohitkhand Kuvertity Barrilly. Dr. Mukul Raj Mehta aged about 46 years residing at IA Mahamanapuri Colony, P O BHU Varansi working as Professor in BHU Department of Philosophy and Religion and Recognized "c" Scientist by UGC associated with the Department of Philosophy and religion from 1979 and working in the department till this date. 3. Prof. Ashok Kumar Sing residing at Budhpur Delhi 110036 aged about 36 years working as Associate Professor, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology, Alipur. 4. 3. Prof. Ashok Kumar Sing residing at Budhpur Delhi 110036 aged about 36 years working as Associate Professor, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology, Alipur. 4. Dr. Govind Narayan aged 37 years residing at Ward 20 House NO. 61 New Colony Robertsgany Sonbhandra. 5. Mrs. Shakti Shri Vastava aged about 33 y ears, residing at A-33, 3rd Floor Kamla Nagar New Delhi working as Lectrer in DIET New Delhi. 6. Kum. Jyotsna Vijaychandra Prasad Shukla aged about 35 years residing at D53/89 Shurubag, Varanasi. 7. Dr. Shri Dhananjaya S/o Manmohan Mishra aged about 43 years N/2b-62 Indra Nagar Colony, PO Sunder Pura, Varanasi. 8. Sanjay Kumar s/o late Rasbihari Shrivastava aged about 35 years residing at Flat NO. 403 Shanpati Dham Surya Complex, Varansi. 9. Dr. Mrs. Shila Singh aged about 37 years, residing at C/33/265-3 Duadotpur, Varanasi working as Researchers. The copies of the aforesaid nine affidavits are also annexed herewith and marked as Annexure IV collectively. ( 14 ) IN appreciation of the academic work done by me in Banaras Hindu University, I was invited to examine Ph. D. thesis of Department of Philosophy and religious from 1995. A true copy of the letter dated 22. 3. 95 written by Comptroller of Examinations, BHU to me is annexed herewith and marked Annexure V ). By now I must have assessed not less than 15 thesis from the Department of Religion and Philosophy Banaras Hindu University. ( 15 ) FROM the above facts the respondents submits that the information supplied by the Head of the Department of Philosophy and Religion is far from true. ( 16 ) I received certificate by then Head who has signed it is te fact which it to be inquired by the auhtorities of Banaaras Hindu University and find out the person responsible for the act. "10. The respondents submit that the vigilance commission has not made any inquiry with institution. Besides this the commission has made over riding statement without inquiry and without reasonable evidence in their possession. "10. The respondents submit that the vigilance commission has not made any inquiry with institution. Besides this the commission has made over riding statement without inquiry and without reasonable evidence in their possession. " ( 17 ) IN view of the aforesaid averments of the parties and keeping in mind the fact that the at the time of issuing rule, petitioner has not pressed for interim relief and, therefore, no order was passed by this court on interim relief, meaning thereby, interim relief is refused by this court, now prayer made in this application being mandatory in nature cannot be granted during the pendency of the petition without examining the merits of the matter at this stage, there is no reason for this Court to examine merits of the matter. At the most, it can be said that these things could be examined by the Court while considering the matter finally. Further, if the petitioner is seeking inteirm relief which is mandatory in nature, then, petitioner is required to plead in clear terms that petitioner has got prima facie case and he must press for interim relief before this Court. If it is not pressed and then not granted by this court, then, it amounts to refusal of interim relief while issuing rule in the matter. Granting of mandatory relief at interim stage amounts to allowing the petition without deciding the matter at the final hearing. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, such prayer cannot be granted by this Court. Petitioner has not proved any prima facie case in her favour for granting interim relief sought through this application. Petitioenr has also not proved before this Court that if the interim relief is not granted, then, the petitioner would be suffering the irreparable injury and/or loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Petitioner has also not proved that the balance of convenience is in her favour rather than the respondents. It is also made clear that the petitioner has not made any averments in the memo of petition that she has got prima facie case or that the balance of convenience is in her favour of that she would suffer irreparable injury and/or loss if interim relief is not granted by this Court. It is also made clear that the petitioner has not made any averments in the memo of petition that she has got prima facie case or that the balance of convenience is in her favour of that she would suffer irreparable injury and/or loss if interim relief is not granted by this Court. Ultimately, if the contentions of the petitioner are upheld by this court at the time of final hearing, then, this Court can grant all relief in favour of the petitioner with all other ancillary and consequential reliefs and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner would suffer the irreparable injury and/or loss if the interim relief is not granted by this Court. ( 18 ) THIS aspect was examined by the apex court in Dorab Cawasji Warden, Appellant v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, Respondents, reported in AIR 1990 SC 867 . In para 14 and 15 of said decision, apex court observed as under: "14. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy- until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are : (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie cast that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 15. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 15. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive or complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as pre-requisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion. " ( 19 ) IN this application also, petitioner has not made averments about her prima facie case. Facts which are narrated in the application cannot be considered to be subsequent facts which would entitle her for claiming interim relief. Except the allegations made by petitioner against respondent NO. 2, petitioner has not put up her case on the basis of the subsequent facts, therefore, present application cannot be entertained by this court as the inteirm relief was not pressed by the petitioner when the Court considered the matter for issuance of rule. Therefore, according to my opinion, present civil application cannot be entertained by this Court, therefore, prayers made by the applicant in this application cannot be granted as it amounts to allowing the matter finall. Alleged subsequent development, according to my opinion, is not helpful for the petitioner for claiming interim relief as the petitioner has not established her prima facie case. Therefore, there is no substance in the present civil application and the same is, therefore, required to be rejected. In result, this application is rejected. No order as to costs.