JUDGMENT 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. 4. Submission is that the respondent cannot be treated to be selected nor can be treated to be appointed on Class-IV post, even if the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools stands stayed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 5. Further submission is that an application for vacation of stay order alongwith the counter-affidavit has also been filed in which all the facts which are necessary for adjudication have been placed on record by the respondents (the present appellants), therefore, the said application ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge before passing an order for compliance of the interim order. 6. We have considered the aforesaid arguments and we are of the considered opinion that in a matter of payment of salary, interim orders are rarely passed, unless it makes out a very strong case. 6. We have considered the aforesaid arguments and we are of the considered opinion that in a matter of payment of salary, interim orders are rarely passed, unless it makes out a very strong case. In a case where no order of appointment has been issued in favour of respondent and that such an appointment could only have been made with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools under Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the Act, which admittedly has never been granted, the question of allowing salary need be considered by the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the counter-affidavit filed by the present appellants. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, without commenting upon the claim of either parties, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2010 and direct the Registry to list the application for vacation of stay order alongwith the writ petition immediately after two weeks, before the learned Single Judge and if possible the writ petition may be disposed of and if not, then the application for vacation of stay order may be considered. The parties are at liberty to make such a mention before the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ————