ORDER
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
1. The appellant was appointed as a Principal by Memo dated 21st July, 1995. However, by memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan as competent authority, the appointment of the appellant as Principal was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualifications. The Memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 is the subject matter of challenge in CW No. 14/98 filed by the appellant. The learned single Judge in terms of order dated 2nd February, 1998 has issued Rule in the writ petition. The application for grant of stay filed along with the writ petition has been, however, dismissed and the application seeking vacation of exparte order of stay has been allowed. By a detailed order, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that:
“A reading of the reply would show that the petitioner himself has admitted that he did not possess the required qualifications but what he would state is that his application was accepted and he was called for interview and therefore the respondent cannot go back and seek to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. Prima facie I am satisfied that the respondents have applied the principle of natural justice and they held that the petitioner has not satisfied the qualifications on the date of his appointment as Principal and therefore the petitioner cannot seek to appoint him as Principal and he should be continued to function as a Principal till the disposal of the writ petition, which amounts to allowing the petition without hearing the respondents.”
2. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge on interim application the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. At the outset, we may notice that the settled legal position is that grant of interim order of injunction which may result in a petitioner continuing in service is an exception and non-grant a rule. Of course, in a given case depending upon facts and circumstances of the case an interim order which may result in the writ petitioner/appellant continuing in service pending the decision on merits of the main writ petition or appeal, may be justified but ordinarily such an order is made as a clear case of illegality and arbitrariness where any other interim arrangement to do complete justice between the parties may not be possible to be made. The reason for this legal position is obvious. The non-grant of interim injunction can be compensated by grant of damages but if the services are continued, it may be difficult to compensate the other party even in a case where writ petition or appeal is dismissed.
4. Bearing in mind aforesaid legal proposition, we have examined the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The question whether the appellant possessed or not the essential qualifications at the time of his interview and for the said purpose the effect of office order dated 13th June, 1994 detaining the appellant on temporary duty in Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 4 Cantt. as incharge Principal until further orders; the effect of communication dated 28th May, 1997 sent by Assistant Director J.D. Kalra to G.K. Chandra and also the effect of the appellant for having been declared successful candidate in the departmental examination in the results dated 18th February, 1998 will all come up for consideration before learned Single Judge at the time of hearing and decision of the writ petition. For the present purposes of this appeal against the interim order, on the facts of this case, we do not think that the case calls for taking a prima facie view different than what has been taken by learned Single Judge. Any expression of opinion in this appeal may prejudice any of the parties. We, therefore, refrain from expressing opinion one way or the other except noticing that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on record, we do not think that it is a case for issue of interim directions for continuance of appellant in service. The appellant would, however, be at liberty to seek an early hearing in the writ petition. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.