- (1.) By the Court.-A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the special appeal, saying that the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge only enforces the interim order dated 22.1.2009 (wrongly mentioned as 21.9.2009 in the order), by means of which, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the representation of the respondent, for treating him to be selected on Class-IV post was rejected.
(2.) His further submission is that in view of the clear violation of the interim order, even after a lapse of one year, the learned Single Judge if has issued any direction for compliance thereof, no exception can be taken nor the order can be said to be without jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, in response, submitted that this is a case where earlier selection held in the year 2006 was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools and thereafter, fresh selection process was started, in which the private respondent also appeared but could not be selected. On his representation, the matter was considered by the District Inspector of Schools under the directives issued by this Court in writ petition filed by the private respondent earlier and the said representation was rejected under the order impugned in the writ petition.;