Surya Kant, J. (Oral):— This letters patent appeal impugns two interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Vide the first order dated 21.10.2011, it was directed that services of first respondent-writ petitioner be not terminated. Vide the subsequent order dated 18.10.2012, the writ petition was ‘admitted’ and interim order was made to continue as it was observed that in view of the prayer made in the writ petition to direct the State of Punjab to frame a policy/lay down guidelines for making the appointments/absorption/re-designation in the office of Advocate General, Punjab, the matter requires detailed hearing.
2. As the order dated 18.10.2012 speaks for itself, the issue under consideration before the learned Single Judge is of vital public importance. It may not be expedient for us to express any opinion at this stage as the learned Single Judge is seized of the matter except to say that the question formulated vide order dated 18.10.2012 requires serious consideration.
3. It is informed that the appellant-State has already moved an application for vacation of above-stated stay order and the first respondent-writ petitioner, on the other hand, has preferred a contempt petition. The learned Single Judge is seized with both the matters.
4. We have otherwise a serious doubt against maintainability of the letters patent appeal against the interim orders under challenge as these orders do not amount to expression of any views by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the case. We thus do not find any no ground to interfere with the impugned orders and dismiss this appeal, however, without prejudice to the appellants' right to raise all the contentions before the learned Single Judge.
5. As we have decided the appeal on merits, no separate order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay of 229 days in filing the appeal.