Interim relief cannot be continued against an administrative order already implemented prior to the court's intervention.

The applicant (respondent in MA) was promoted to Head Assistant in 2023 based on a finalized seniority list

In April 2025, the government revised this seniority list, asserting the 2023 version was flawed as it used the training course date instead of initial merit

Consequently, the respondents issued Order No. 30-NG of 2026 on 30.03.2026, reverting the applicant to accommodate senior candidates

On 02.04.2026, the Tribunal granted an interim stay on the reversion for two weeks

The government moved this Miscellaneous Application to vacate that stay, arguing that the reversion order had already been implemented on 31.03.2026—before the stay was granted—and a third party, Mohammad Ashraf Wani, had already assumed the post

1. Whether the interim protection granted on 02.04.2026 should be continued or vacated in light of the implementation of the impugned order and third-party interests

2. Whether the non-impleadment of the newly promoted official (Mohammad Ashraf Wani) renders the challenge to the interim relief defective

The Tribunal primarily considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions: the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

Proviso (b) to Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which dictates the criteria for determining seniority

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties, which posits that no adverse order can be passed affecting a person’s rights (such as an incumbent holding a post) without impleading them

The Tribunal found that the interim order dated 02.04.2026 was effectively "incapable of practical efficacy" because the applicant had already been relieved and the post filled by a third party on 31.03.2026

The court reasoned that continuing the stay would unsettle a completed administrative action and prejudice Shri Mohammad Ashraf Wani, who was not a party to the proceedings

While the applicant argued that the 2023 seniority list created vested rights, the Tribunal noted that the respondents' claim—that the list was prepared on an "impermissible criterion"—required full trial adjudication rather than interim relief

The balance of convenience shifted in favor of the government/new incumbent because the applicant’s potential loss is not "irreparable" and can be compensated through final relief

The Miscellaneous Application for vacation of stay was disposed of, and the Original Application was listed for final hearing