JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. Ramesh Rai in support of this appeal. Mr. Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Gupta appear for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. A.K. Srivastava appears for respondent Nos. 6 to 9. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed a petition bearing petition No. 6361 of 2008. They have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 24th January, 2008 whereby he has withdrawn the promotions which were granted to them. He has passed a reasoned order. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were promoted from the post of Lekhpal to the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo, in September, 2007. It is their case that they were not heard before the passing of the impugned order and, therefore, they filed the petition. The learned Single Judge has passed an interim order granting stay on 5th February, 2008. There are other Lekhpals like the appellant who feel aggrieved by the passing of this order and, therefore, they have filed this appeal. 4. The submission of the appellant is that the order of the Commissioner was fully justified. The Commissioner has given reasons to point out as to how the marking was wrong when the selection of these respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was done. It is also submitted by Mr. Rai that whereas the criteria for promotion is of seniority-cum-merit, the promotion was made on the basis of merit alone. 5. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand submitted that after the selections were made, a petition was filed by the other Lekhpals, bearing writ petition No. 53240 of 2007, wherein the State Government has filed a counter-affidavit and defended the selection and no interim order was granted. Now subsequently this order has been passed by the Commissioner on 24th January, 2008 and surely, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in granting the stay, which he has done. The appeal is confined basically to the interim order. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the Counsel as well as that of Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Srivastava has defended the order of the Commissioner. 7. In our view, it will be desirable that both these petitions No. 53240 of 2007 as well as petition No. 6361 of 2008 are heard together by the same Judge looking in this scenario. 8. A.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Srivastava has defended the order of the Commissioner. 7. In our view, it will be desirable that both these petitions No. 53240 of 2007 as well as petition No. 6361 of 2008 are heard together by the same Judge looking in this scenario. 8. Considering that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were selected just a few months before in September, 2007 and also that on noticing the error their promotions have been withdrawn, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to grant stay of the withdrawal order. The grant of stay will mean that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 will continue to function in the position of Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo, though now the Commissioner has withdrawn their promotion. It will mean that though Government does not want to maintain the selection which have been done earlier, it will be continued under an interim order. 9. The Government cannot be denied the liberty of reconsideration on the material being placed before it and the Government having done so through the Commissioner, the correctness of this decision will have to be tested. Grant of a stay in favour of those who are selected, if permitted, will amount to grant of final relief sought in the petition, as they will continue for quite sometime until the petition is decided. That will not be a desirable position. In the circumstances, in our view, the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the interim order that he has passed. 10. We allow this appeal and set aside the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. We make it clear that since respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have worked in the higher position and drawn the higher salary in the meanwhile for of few months, the same will not be withdrawn from them. We request the learned Judge to hear both the petitions together. With the passage of this order they will come back to the lower position and draw the salary of the lawer post until further orders on the petition. 12. The appeal is allowed. The State as well as the appellants will file their counter-affidavit in the writ petition within four weeks, whereafter matter will be heard by the Single Judge. ————