- (1.) The appellant before us was the second empanelled candidate whereas the respondent no.1 was the first empanelled candidate. The appellant challenged such selection in an earlier writ proceeding being WP 23686(W) of 2008. In the said writ petition it was alleged that the first empanelled candidate was the son of the Secretary of the school. The entire selection process was vitiated by illegality and was directed only to select the private respondent, being a favoured candidate. During pendency of the said writ proceeding, the private respondent filed subsequent writ petition being WP 26012(W) of 2008. He prayed for approval of his appointment, as by that time he had already got appointment. The learned Judge however, directed the District Inspector of Schools to take immediate steps for issuance of letter of appointment within two weeks. Such order was passed behind the back of the present appellant concealing the pendency of the earlier writ proceeding initiated by the appellant.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that the order impugned herein is not enforceable in any case in view of the fact that the respondent no.1 had already got appointment and there was no scope for the District Inspector of Schools to issue letter of appointment. In fact, under the rules the school issues letter of appointment whereas the District Inspector of Schools approves appointment in accordance with law.
(3.) The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order dated February 27, 2009 passed in WP 26012(W) of 2008 is set aside. WP 26012(W) of 2008 is dismissed. FMA 259 of 2010 is disposed of accordingly.;