BALI, J. - (1.) THIS D. B. Special Appeal (W) under Article 225 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against interim order dated 26. 5. 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9089/2002. The impugned order reads as under: " After having considered entire material on record, in view of controversies and issues raised on behalf of both the sides and further the final relief, as prayed in the writ petition should not be granted by an interim order, in the facts and circumstances, I find no justification for continuing the interim orders passed in favour of the petitioner earlier. The same is hereby vacated. The stay application stands dismissed of accordingly. "
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has apprised us that when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 27. 11. 2003, interim stay was granted to the appellant after hearing all the concerned parties. LEARNED Single Judge, at that stage, had heard arguments on merits of the case and passed a speaking order which reads as follows: " The petitioner was appointed as Dean of Faculty of Social Science vide order dated 27. 9. 2002. The petitioner joined on the post on 27. 9. 2002. On the next date i. e. , 28. 9. 2002 the petitioner was further nominated as Member of Syndicate being Dean of Faculty of Social Science. Subsequently, with the change of Vice Chancellor the above orders dated 27. 9. 2002 and 28. 9. 2002 were kept in abeyance vide order dated 27. 11. 2002. This Court while issuing notice stayed the operation of the order dated 27. 11. 2002 qua the petitioner vide order dated 9. 12. 2002 and the petitioner was allowed to work as Dean of Faculty of Social Science. However, by yet another order dated 11. 12. 2002 both the orders dated 27. 9. 2002 as also the order dated 28. 9. 2002 have been withdrawn. Be that as it may, in view of the order passed on 9. 12. 2002 the petitioner is still continuing as Dean of Faculty of Social Science. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without making any further observations on the merits of the case, the operation of the orders dated 11. 12. 2002 so far petitioner is concerned, is stayed. Apart from allowing the petitioner to work as a Dean of Faculty of Social Science, the petitioner shall also be allowed to work as Member of the Syndicate in pursuance to order dated 28. 9. 2002. " Against the order aforesaid, respondents carried appeal bearing No. 39/2004 University of Rajasthan and Another vs. Prof. Madhukar Shyam Chaturvedi and the Division Bench, while dealing with the appeal, did not vary/modify/vacate order dated 27. 11. 2003. Division Bench passed the following order on 24. 2. 2004:- " This appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge should be heard expeditiously. Accordingly, we request the learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition expeditiously since it relates to the academic matter. It will be open to the learned counsel for the parties to raise such pleas as may be available to them under law. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. " The matter then came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 22. 7. 2004 when the following order was passed:- " Put up for final disposal at this stage in the month of August, 2004 along with connected case. " When once again the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 16. 12. 2004, the following order was passed: " Interim order passed on 27. 11. 2003 to continue till final disposal of the writ petition" Respondents moved an application for early hearing on 11. 3. 2005 on which following order was passed on 1. 4. 2005: " Heard. The application for early hearing is allowed. Put up for admission/hearing on 25. 4. 2005 along with connected case. "
(3.) LEARNED counsel further informs us that the application for early hearing, mention whereof has been made above, also contained prayer for modification of the stay but while disposing of the application, no orders with regard to modification of stay were passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, on 16. 12. 2004, learned Single Judge, rather confirmed the stay to last till disposal of the writ petition. When, however, the matter came up for hearing on 26. 5. 2005 which, in the circumstances, could only be hearing on the writ petition and not hearing on the stay application, the impugned order reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment was passed. The facts, as detailed above, dealing with the progress of the case and the interim orders passed from time to time, are not in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that once the learned Single Judge had granted stay which was not varied even by the appellate Bench on an appeal preferred by the respondents and when further learned Single Judge had even confirmed the stay and when while hearing application for early hearing which also contained prayer for modification of stay, the learned Single Judge chose not to modify stay order, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to vacate the stay order and that too by passing a non- speaking and cryptic order. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that it is always open to the court to modify or even vacate stay orders and no law enjoins that once stay is granted, the same cannot be varied, modified or vacated. If at any time, the court may come to a conclusion that continuance of stay is not justified, it can vacate the same. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance, examined records of the case. ;