IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1607 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.30613/2008 Dated 21/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE W.P(C) ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. RANJINI.P.H.S.A(HINDI),NAMHSS PERINGATHUR,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT RESIDING AT PANICHINGANDAVIDA HOUSE,ANIYARAM.P.O, VIA CHOKLY,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER,NAMHSS,PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ FOR R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.SOHAN – R2. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1607 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: State and its Officers in the Department of Education are the appellants in this appeal. They impugn the interim order passed by a learned single Judge in a pending writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein. 2. The grievance of respondent No.1 who has been appointed as a High School Assistant (Hindi) in the school under the managership of respondent No.2 herein is that her appointment is being refused to be approved without any legal or valid reasons. Her case appears to be that she is entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P17 circular issued by the Government. She says that the said circular governs the field. 3. However learned Govt. Pleader who appears for the appellants takes exception to the above contention and submits that petitioner may not be entitled to get her appointment approved for reasons more than one. 4. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the various contentions raised by the appellants and the respondents in this appeal at this stage, since in our view, WA.1607/10. : 2 : the appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. 5. The learned single Judge passed the impugned interim order directing the District Education Officer, 'Thalasserry “to consider the claim of the petitioner for approval of her appointment in the light of GO(P). No.46/2006/G.Edn. dated 01/02/2006 and GO(Ms) No.19/09/G.Edn. dated 09/02/2009 and pass an order granting the claim.” The appellants take strong exception to the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the District Educational Officer to allow the claim of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that the learned Judge ought not to have directed the Officer concerned “to grant” the prayer made by the petitioner for approval of her appointment. 7. We find considerable force in the above contention since, as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader, the primary or the only prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to approve the appointment of the petitioner. In effect, the learned Judge has allowed the main prayer in the writ petition itself WA.1607/10. : 3 : through the impugned interim order. This could not have been done. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It will be open to the petitioner to make a request before the learned single Judge to expedite the hearing of the writ petition. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.