The court reinforced the doctrine that interim judicial mandates invalidate prior orders concerning recruitment when suitable candidates are available, thereby mandating compliance with in-service priorities.

The race is for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam); the first respondent, an in - service candidate, has cried foul and filed a writ petition. The appellant, the Manager, asserted his right to appoint a candidate of his choice. The 6th respondent, the beneficiary, toed the appellant's line. The Court, in the writ petition, has declared that the first respondent is the wronged; the 6th respondent, the usurper; and the appellant, the wrongdoer. Questioning the writ conclusions, the appellant and the 6th respondent have taken two intra - Court appeals: WA Nos. 2524 and 2737 of 2015.

2. As both the writ appeals arise out of one judgment, we have decided to dispose of both the appeals through a common judgment. For narrative purpose, we have taken WA No. 2524 of 2015 as the basis, and the parties are referred to accordingly.

3. Facts in Brief:

In the school managed by the appellant, the first respondent, Augustine M.J., joined in 1989 as a High School Assistant (Malayalam), duly qualified. In 2000-2001, the school had a higher secondary division sanctioned to it. The Government, earlier, issued GO (MS) No. 162/98 / G.Edn., Tvm., dt. 13/05/1998 ('the GO'), setting out the methodology for appointing higher secondary school teachers ('HSST'). Broadly, 25% of the teachers had to be recruited from the in - service candidates, and 75% by direct recruitment.

4. Unconnected with the present dispute, though, GO (MS) No. 162 of 1998 engendered a lot of litigation: in a batch of special leave petitions and writ petitions under Art.32, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07/12/1999 issued Ext.P5 interim order directing the schools to appoint HSSTs only from among the eligible in - service candidates. Nevertheless, it permitted the schools to go for direct recruitment only if a suitable in - service candidate was unavailable. The Government, in consequence, issued Ext. P6 circular dated 23/12/1999.

5. To put these developments in perspective, we may observe that the impugned GO held the field till 07/12/1999, when the Apex Court issued the interim direction; thereafter, the interim direction held the field till 14/11/2000, when the judicial proceedings concluded in M. M. Dolichan v State of Kerala [2001 KHC 1328 : 2001 (1) SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 174 : AIR 2001 SC 216 : 2001 Lab IC 66 : 2001 (1) LLN 70]. It is pertinent to observe that, by the time the Apex Court rendered Dolichan, the Government brought in draft rules for an alternative method of recruitment. Thus, any deep forensic analysis of the impugned GO before the Apex Court was obviated. It, thus, held the sway for a very limited period.

6. Coming back to the facts, we may further note that despite the above judicial and administrative developments, the Manager, acting on the earlier GO, issued Ext. P7 notification dated 09/08/2000 inviting applications for direct recruitment to HSST posts.

7. Given the challenge mounted against the GO, which permitted direct recruitment, many teachers in the school, including Augustine, represented to the Manager that their case as in - service candidates must be considered b