We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants for more than one reason. In those two writ petitions, the learned single Judge simply passed interim orders and did not dispose of the writ petitions on merits. Whereas, by the impugned order in these proceedings, another learned single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions on merits. More over, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants did not appear in the other two writ petitions and, therefore, we are unable to accept his submission that the facts of these cases are similar. As a matter of fact, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/University contends that the facts in these appeals and the facts in those writ petitions are not similar and no parallel can be drawn. It is further urged that interim order cannot be treated as a binding precedent, without repetition or much debate. We express our agreement with the reasoning of learned Single Judge and the contention raised by the respondent/University. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned single Judge in view of the admitted fact that admission of the appellants was not approved by the respondent – University.
