IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 44 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 14675/08 IN WPC.20936/2008 Dated 05/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER), GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- M.O.PUSHPENDRAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT), NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 44 OF 2009-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 11th March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The official respondents, aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.14675/2008 in W.P.(C) No.30936/2008 have come up in appeal. According to the State, the final relief which could be granted has been granted by way of an interim order. In appropriate cases, this Court has the power to pass orders by way of interim relief, which may make the main petition itself infructuous. But, the same cannot be said to be a jurisdictional error. Having regard to the principles laid down by this Court concerning challenge to interim orders, we feel that this is not a fit case, calling for interference by the Division Bench. 2. The learned Single Judge only directed the D.P.C to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion, in view of the fact that the punishment imposed on him is only a censure. At the time of consideration of his claim for promotion, disciplinary proceedings were pending against WA 44/2009 2 the writ petitioner. So, the D.PC. considered his claim, but the decision was kept in a sealed cover. Now, the direction of the learned Single Judge is to open the sealed cover and make a final decision on the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion. If the punishment imposed on him is only a censure, we find nothing wrong with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. If the appellants move for early hearing of the writ petition, the learned Judge may consider the same. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. nm/