IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2529 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RANJITH K., S/O. RAMUNNI, 'RAMUNNI VILLA', KALIKKALPARAMBA, PAYANGADI R.S.POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADAYI. 4. THE MANAGER, PARUR A.L.P.SCHOOL, PANAPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. P.JAYAKRISHNAN, PARUR DESOM, PANAPUZHA P.O., M.M.BAZAR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) FOR R4 SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB FOR R4 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R5 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER MR. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 4223 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 2529 & 4223 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T In W.P.(C) No. 2529/08 what is under challenge is Ext. P8, an order issued by the 1st respondent directing the AEO, Madayi, Kannur to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent herein, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4223/08, in which the relief sought for is a direction to implement Ext. P8 which has been produced as Ext. P5. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4223/08 was appointed in the Parur ALP School by order dated 20.10.2003 as Assistant Teacher. The approval was rejected by the AEO and the rejection was confirmed in appeal and revisional orders issued by the DEO as also the Government. It was thereafter that the Government issued Ext. P8 order referred to above directing the AEO to approve the appointment. 3. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2529/08 is concerned he was neither an applicant nor was he a candidate for the post to which the appointment has been made. It is the settled position of law that a third party has no locus standi to challenge an W.P.(C) Nos. 2529 & 4223 OF 2008 -2- order of appointment. Therefore the petitioner in WP(C) No.2529/08 has no locus standi to impugn Ext. P8 order passed by the Government directing approval of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4223/08. When the question of locus standi raised counsel for the petitioner contended that had the post been advertised she too would have applied for the post. However, on going through the pleadings I do not see that a plea of lack of advertisement has not been raised in the writ petition and in the absence of which, I am not persuaded to consider this contention. Therefore W.P.(C) No. 2529/08 is only to be dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly. 4. As already noticed, the prayer in W.P.(C) No. 4223/08 is to direct the AEO, Madayi, Kannur, to implement Ext. P8 order dated 28.6.2007 directing approval of the petitioner herein. Since Ext. P8 order referred to above has been issued and has become final, there is no reason why the approval shall not be accorded. This shall be done by the AEO as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-