Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012the writ petition, the writ petition itselfwas not maintainable.We, therefore, do not find any reason todiffer with the view taken by the learnedSingle Judge. The appeal is, accordingly,dismissed.Case law discussed:(1997) 6 SCC 574; (1994) 2 SCC 718; (2007) 1AWC 507 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 1701;AIR 2003SC 1805(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam,C. J.)1. This intra-court has beenpreferred against the judgment and orderdated 16.12.2011 passed by the learnedSingle Judge in Writ Petition No. 18190of 1987 by which the appellant'sappointment was found contrary to theprovisions of law and the writ petitionwas dismissed.2. Heard learned counsel for theappellant and also perused the order of thelearned Single Judge impugned in thisappeal.3. We are of the view that the orderof the learned Single Judge does notsuffer from any error and, therefore, wehave no reason to disagree with the viewtaken by him. The law in this regard iswell settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Courtin State of Rajasthan Vs. HitendraKumar Bhatt, (1997) 6 SCC 574 hasalready held that an interim order passedin a pending proceeding merges into finalorder and, therefore, even if on thestrength of the interim order passed in thewrit petition, the appellant continued inservice, that does not confer any right toclaim continuance in service on theground that a sympathetic view ought tohave been taken since the appellantcontinued for a long period under theinterim order of this Court.4. It is well settled that justice has tobe dispensed in accordance with law andequity and sympathy shall have no placeor overriding effect over the statutoryprovisions. The Apex Court in the case ofLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaVs. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar(Mrs.) & Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 718, hasheld as under:-"... Justice according to law is aprinciple as old as the hills. The courts areto administer law as they find it, however,inconvenient it may be.... ... ...The Courts should endeavour to findout whether a particular case whichsympathetic considerations are to beweighed falls within the scope of law.Disregardful of law, however, hard thecase may be, it should never be done..."5. In the case of Raghunath RaiBareja Vs. Punjab National Bank,(2007) 1 AWC 507 (SC), the Apex Courthas observed:-"...It is well settled that when there isa conflict between law and equity, it is thelaw which has to prevail, in accordancewith Latin maxim 'dura lex sed lex',which means 'the law is hard, but it is thelaw'. Equity can only supplement the lawbut it cannot supplant or override it.... what is administered in the Courtsis justice according to law, andconsiderations of fair play and equityhowever they may be, must yield to clearand express provision of the law."6. The matter may be examinedfrom another angle also. The petitioner-