IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 46 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.1241/2009 IN WPC 23112/09 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SREENEGESH P.R. HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH) K.K.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM PO PALAKKAD DISRICT,THATTANCHALLA, NANNIODE POST CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION, (E) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. 4. THE MANAGER K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VANDITHAVALAM PO, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 5. THE HEADMASTER K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VANDITHAVALAM PO, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 6. THOMAS JOSEPH K.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VANDITHAVALAM PO, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM (R5) SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED(R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.46 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 12th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The dispute raised in this appeal for resolution relates to the claim made by the appellant for approval of his appointment to the post of H.S.A.(English). According to the appellant, one post of HSA(English) out of the two posts sanctioned during the academic year 2005-06 was filled up by promoting him, who was a UPSA. The promotion was on 5.6.2006. But his appointment was not approved for the reason that he was not a graduate in English, though his B.Ed. was in English. The said post remained vacant and it was filled up only on 1.11.2007. According to the contesting respondent, it was filled on 1.10.2007. The appellant submits that he became qualified on 29.9.2007. Therefore, his appointment should have been approved with effect from 29.9.2007 and so, the appointment of the candidate from the open market thereafter, is unsustainable in law. The contentions of the appellant were not accepted by the District Educational Officer. The said officer ordered approval of appointment of the 6th respondent, who was WA NO.46/2010 2 appointed after 29.9.2007. On appeal, the Director of Public Instruction upheld the claim of the appellant. But the Government reversed the order of the DPI, taking the view that the claim of the appellant has to be considered with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The appellant submits that the appointment from the open market could have been made only before 29.9.2007 and not thereafter. Though the learned Single Judge granted stay of the order of the Government, later it was modified, enabling the 6th respondent to draw the salary. The petitioner tried to seek review of that order modifying the interim order. That was also rejected. So, challenging the interim order dated 11.12.2009 which enables the 6th respondent to draw the salary and the order in R.P.1241/09, declining to review the order dated 11.12.2009, this writ appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In this case, the relief could be granted if only the claim of the appellant is decided on merits. In an appeal against interim order, the Appellate Court is not supposed to do that. We think the grievance of the appellant will be redressed if the writ petition WA NO.46/2010 3 is heard on an earlier date. We request the learned Single Judge to give preference to the hearing of W.P.(C)No.23112/09 and try to dispose of the same at the earliest. Since the 6th respondent is the beneficiary of the interim order, the case shall not be adjourned at the instance of the 6th respondent. With this direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. I.A.No.32/2010 : Dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.46 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 12th January, 2010.