JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, these Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. M.Nallathambi, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, Mr. Vijayanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Karthik Mukundan, learned counsel for R1 to R3 and Mr. T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for R5 and R6. No notice is required to be served on the 4th respondent in view of nature of disposal of these appeals. 3. These writ appeals are directed against the common interim order, passed by the learned Single Judge in M.P.Nos.4 & 5 of 2012 in W.P.No.8864 of 2012, in and by which, the learned Single Judge vacated interim orders on 26.07.2013, granted vide M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 in W.P.No.8864 of 2012, by holding as under: "6. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was terminated from service. If he succeeds in the writ petition, he can get back the employment. Hence, there is no use in keeping the post vacant till the disposal of the writ petition. 7. In the circumstances, I am inclined to vacate the interim direction that was issued in M.P.Nos.3/2012. Accordingly, the M.P.No.5 of 2012 is allowed. 8. As stated above, the petitioner was given the official quarters based on his appointment as Assistant Registrar. Admittedly, he is terminated from service as on 29.3.2012. Once he is terminated, he cannot retain the quarters. There is no stay of termination. In the circumstance, I am inclined to vacate the interim order granted in M.P.No.2 of 2012. Accordingly, M.P.No.2/2012 is dismissed and M.P.No.4/2012 is allowed." 4. The appellant/petitioner had filed a writ petition, seeking to quash the order of termination dated 29.03.2012 issued vide Letter No.F.R/150/03/2012/45 by the 3rd respondent therein as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and against the principles of natural justice with further direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his services in the Indian Institute of Technology (in short "IIT"), Madras as per his appointment order. Along with the main writ petition, following miscellaneous petitions were filed: i ) M.P.No.1 of 2012 - For Interim Stay ii) M.P.No.2 of 2012 - For interim direction to the 3rd respondent to forbear from filling up the vacancy arising in pursuance of the termination order dated 29.03.2012. Along with the main writ petition, following miscellaneous petitions were filed: i ) M.P.No.1 of 2012 - For Interim Stay ii) M.P.No.2 of 2012 - For interim direction to the 3rd respondent to forbear from filling up the vacancy arising in pursuance of the termination order dated 29.03.2012. iii) M.P.No.3 of 2012 - For interim direction to the 3rd respondent to forbear from passing any orders directing the petitioner to vacate the official quarters, pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. The writ Court, while ordering notice of motion on 02.04.2012, granted interim relief as prayed for in M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2012. However, subsequently, on petitions in M.P.Nos.4 & 5 of 2012 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, the learned Single Judge was pleased to vacate interim orders on 26.07.2013 by passing orders as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/writ petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ appeals. 6. Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has vehemently contended that the appellant, having served in various capacities for about 10½ years, finally joined IIT as Assistant Registrar on 19.05.2011, but to his shock and surprise, within a short span of time, i.e., within 3 months, respondents have chosen to terminate his service even during the period of probation, which forced him to file the writ petition in this Court, questioning his termination. Though initially, this Court, on due consideration and examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, granted interim orders in order to safeguard the interest of the appellant/petitioner, but owing to the simple reason of non grant of stay of termination, subsequently, learned Single Judge vacated interim orders, which cannot be allowed to stand. 7. On the other hand, controverting the said submissions, Mr.Vijayanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly decided to vacate the interim orders, since there was no interim stay of termination order and therefore, no legal right is conferred upon the petitioner to occupy in the official quarters. 7. On the other hand, controverting the said submissions, Mr.Vijayanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly decided to vacate the interim orders, since there was no interim stay of termination order and therefore, no legal right is conferred upon the petitioner to occupy in the official quarters. He has also submitted that learned Single Judge is also right in observing that keeping the post of Assistant Registrar vacant in an institution like IIT will cause serious prejudice to the day to day administration of the institution and therefore, no inference is called for by this Court with the order of learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel on either side as also learned counsel for R5 & R6 and perused the interim orders passed by the writ Court. 9. It is seen that the appellant/writ petitioner joined the service of IIT/3rd respondent herein in the capacity of Assistant Registrar on 19.05.2011 through proper channel routed via 4th respondent and continued to serve till 29.03.2012, i.e. the date of termination, which was questioned by way of filing writ petition in W.P.No.8864 of 2012 along with three miscellaneous petitions. Though the appellant/writ petitioner was successful in obtaining interim orders in his favour, but subsequently, the said interim orders were revoked by the learned Single Judge on the ground of non grant of interim stay of termination, which necessitated the petitioner to pursue present appeals. 10. The main plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is that the petitioner has the right to occupy the official quarters till disposal of these writ appeals, since children of the appellant are undergoing studies in Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Madras Campus, Chennai and the said plea has not been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. He has contended that filling up of the vacant post of Assistant Registrar will cause serious repercussion, in case the petitioner comes out successful in the pending writ petition and therefore, vacation of interim directions by the learned Single Judge is not justifiable and to be set aside. 11. He has contended that filling up of the vacant post of Assistant Registrar will cause serious repercussion, in case the petitioner comes out successful in the pending writ petition and therefore, vacation of interim directions by the learned Single Judge is not justifiable and to be set aside. 11. At the same time, it is to be noted that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot keep the post vacant endlessly, as it will surely affect the routine process of administration in running the educational institution and will have the impact on the quality of work. In the light of the above stated position and upon consideration of material information available on record, we are of the considered opinion that for the sake of children's education, the appellant may be permitted to retain the quarters till the end of academic session, as per his undertaking given by way of affidavit, which reads as under: "2. I submit that I have filed the above Writ Appeals in W.A.No.1682 and 1683 of 2013 against the order passed in Interim Application (M.P.No.4 and 5/2012 in W.P.No.8864 of 2012). I submit that the writ petition is pending and the Hon'ble court fixed the date of Writ Petition on 10.09.2013 and the same was not listed for final hearing. 3. I submit that my school going children's education will be affected at this juncture, if we were directed to vacate the quarters. I further submit that I may be permitted to stay till the end of the Academic year. I further submit that I under take to vacate the quarters immediately after this Academic year is over. Therefore, I fervently pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to record my undertaking given above and direct the registry for listing of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.8864 of 2012) at earliest and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice." 12. Taking into account the above undertaking given by the appellant, we hereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the appellant to continue his occupation in the official quarters till 04.05.2014. Taking into account the above undertaking given by the appellant, we hereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the appellant to continue his occupation in the official quarters till 04.05.2014. Insofar as filling up of the vacancy is concerned, there is no bar for the respondents 1 to 3 to fill up the post of Assistant Registrar, but at the same time, appointment order should be issued with an endorsement as to the pendency of writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.No.8864 of 2012. 13. In view of the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the appellant to fix an early date for hearing of the writ petition, Registry is directed to list the writ petition in W.P.No.8864 of 2012 before the concerned learned Single Judge on 04.03.2014 for final disposal. With the above observation and direction, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.