JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. A petition had been filed by the appellant in 1992 challenging an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 1 July 1992 discontinuing his engagement as an ad hoc employee. 2. It appears from the records that on 14 July 1992, a learned Single Judge had, by an interim direction, stayed the operation of the order dated 1 July 1992 and directed that the appellant shall continue on the post and will obtain salary in accordance with law till further orders of the Court or until a regularly selected candidate joins the post. 3. The petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 15 July 2014. The appellant filed an application for recall of the order dated 15 July 2014 on 7 August 2014, stating that when the petition was called out, his Advocate, who was suffering from fever was consulting a Doctor in the clinic situated in the High Court Campus and that in the meantime, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. When the recall application came up before the learned Single Judge, it was dismissed by the impugned order dated 4 September 2014. The learned Single Judge passed the following order: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Learned standing counsel has apprised the court that the petitioner has obtained orders after orders in writ petitions filed by him by making concealment of fact before this court. In view of the concealment made by the petitioner, the petitioner deserves no relief. The cause shown in the restoration application is not sufficient. The restoration application is rejected.” 4. We find merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that while disposing of the recall application, what the learned Single Judge was required to consider was as to whether sufficient ground was shown for the absence of the learned counsel when the petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 15 July 2014. The merits of the petition really did not fall for consideration. Whether there was any concealment of fact was a matter which related to the merits of the petition. The merits of the petition really did not fall for consideration. Whether there was any concealment of fact was a matter which related to the merits of the petition. Moreover, even in that regard, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding as such but has only recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of which, the learned Single Judge has merely recorded that in view of the concealment, the appellant did not deserve any relief. No reasons have been indicated. At the same time, we are of the view that while the interests of justice would require that the writ petition should be restored to file, this should not ipso facto result in the restoration of the interim order. The appellant is an ad hoc employee and whether the interim order should be restored or otherwise should be left to the discretion of the learned Single Judge on remand. 5. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 4 September 2014. In our view, sufficient cause was shown in the application for restoration/recall for the absence of the learned counsel. 6. We, accordingly, restore the writ petition to the file of the learned Single Judge. However, we clarify that this would not result in the revival of the interim order that was passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge would be at liberty to deal with the petition appropriately in accordance with law. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.