IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 1018 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.13600/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): 5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- ANANGANADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,ANANGANADI PO, PANAMANNA 679 501. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. MUHAMMED FAHAD,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JAMALUDEEN , AMBALAKUNNATH HOUSE, PANAMANNA VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD 679501. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 679 501. 3. MISSION DIRECTOR,MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYEMENT GUARANTEE STATE CELL, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND TRIVANDRUM 695 033. 4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 01. 5. JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE, STATE CELL, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD R2 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA ADV.SRI.T.V.GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1018 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal arises from an interim order dated 27.6.2011 in W.P(C).No. 13600 of 2011, whereby a positive direction has been given enabling the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to continue under contract employment for a period of one month more; directing the appellant/employer to file a counter affidavit in the meanwhile. 2. Normally this Court would not interfere with interim orders, especially, when it is confined to just one month. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case brought to the notice of this Court, it requires a second thought and hence considered accordingly. The first respondent in the Writ Petition is represented by a learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator under a particular scheme, for a period of one year, WA.1018/11 2 which was over on 28.2.2011. But the appellant was not in a position to conduct further selection in view of the bar under the Code of Conduct brought out by the Election Commission, in connection with the recent election to the Legislative Assembly. In the circumstances, the appellant gave continued employment to the writ petitioner for a period of two months more, as per Exhibit P6 resolution. After the election, steps were being taken to fill up the post by issuing necessary notification, when the the writ petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition, wherein an interim order was passed on 17.5.2011 issuing 'notice on admission' by special messenger, making it clear that any appointment made will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 4. Since no interim stay was granted, the interview scheduled to be held earlier on 19.5.2011 was conducted on 23.5.2011 and out of the total six persons attended the interview, the most eligible candidate was selected and appointed, who joined duty on 25.5.2011. It was thereafter, that the matter came WA.1018/11 3 up for further consideration before the learned Single Judge, when the impugned order was passed on 27.6.2011 observing that the appellant had not filed any counter affidavit, which in turn is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, since the appellant was not in a position to give employment to the writ petitioner for the reason that the duly selected candidate had already joined duty, the writ petitioner filed a Contempt of Court Case, which made the appellant to file this Writ Appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the first respondent as well. 7. Considering the particular facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that, on the date of passing the impugned order on 27.6.2011, the selection process was complete and the appellant had already appointed another person, who is not a party to these proceedings. In such circumstances, the order passed on 27.6.2011 cannot have any significance; nor can it create, confer or improve any right upon the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent herein. WA.1018/11 4 Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and the appeal is disposed of, with liberty to both the sides to pursue the Writ Petition, which is pending before the concerned court. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs