“3.Now the petitioner is aggrieved only against the order of the second respondent for the reason that having come to the conclusion that they have got the right to decide the matter under Circular No.67, he should not have dismissed only on the ground that there is an order of interim stay in a batch of writ petitions. Whereas in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.5908 of 2012 and batch, it is held that there is no prohibition for the authority to dispose of the matter, on merits and in accordance with law. Even though the order was passed on merits in favour of the petitioner, in the last portion alone it has been stated that no order has been passed because of the injunction granted, which is wrong. Further, the contention of the fourth respondent that he also has the right to challenge the order, but, at this point of time, it does not arise since there is no interim order against the authority to pass order under Circular No.67. In other words, he can pass an order absolutely based on the findings. Hence, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the case of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, as there is no injunction order as asserted in the impugned order.”
