Per Magrey, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by J&K Board of School Education and its officers against the interim order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in CMP no.1007/2013 accompanying OWP no.729/2012, whereby the appellant-Board has been directed to issue Roll Number Slips to the candidates of the Institutes run by the respondents to enable them to appear in the examinations scheduled to be held with effect from 20th May, 2013. 2. The gist of the facts founding the controversy involved in this appeal is noted hereunder: 3. On the basis of the guidelines of National Council for Teachers Education Programme, the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education (BOSE) has introduced two years Elementary Teachers Training Course (ETTC) from the year 2002. The minimum eligibility qualification for admission to the course has been fixed as 10+2 with minimum of 45% marks for general category candidates and 40% marks for reserved category candidates. It is stated that presently there are 585 non-governmental ETTC Institutes in the State imparting such training to the students and each such Institute has a sanctioned intake capacity of students. Fixation of Course calendar lies within the competence of the Government in the Education Department and the schedule for completing the various processes, including admission and counseling is done through Centralised Admission Committee of the Jammu & Kashmir School Education Board (BOSE). 4. In terms of the laid down procedure, a candidate, desirous of taking admission to such Course, is required to apply to the BOSE, as and when notification in that regard is issued, indicating in the application form his/her choice of the Institute where he/she would wish to be admitted for undergoing the Course. The Centralised Admission Committee prepares the select list and allots the students to the various Institutes to the extent of their respective intake capacities on the basis of the choice of candidates so made by them in their application forms. However, each such Institute is entitled to fill 6% of seats in the management quota of their own, but the names and particulars of such candidates have got to be registered with the BOSE. 5. The calendar for the academic Session 2011-13 was issued by State Education Department vide order no.100-Edu of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 read with order no.452-Edu of 2011 dated 10.8.2011. 5. The calendar for the academic Session 2011-13 was issued by State Education Department vide order no.100-Edu of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 read with order no.452-Edu of 2011 dated 10.8.2011. Accordingly, in order to make admissions for the academic session 2011-13, the appellant Board issued notification dated 24.5.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The application forms were to be filed in terms of Information Brochure pertaining to Session 2011-13. At page 12 of the Brochure, under the caption "Selection of the Institution" it provided as under: "Candidates are free to select an Institution of his/her choice if the seats are available in that Institute. The admission will be strictly on the basis of merit list prepared by the J&K State BOSE. The Institution shall however be allotted to the candidate by the Board at the time of counselling." 6. For the Session 2011-13, about 9811 candidates got admission through counselling in 257 Institutions, including that of the respondents herein. Respondent no.1 was allotted 7 candidates against management quota at the rate of 6% of the total intake capacity; whereas respondent no. 2 was allotted 89 candidates on the basis of choice of the candidates and 7 candidates against management quota. Thereafter, in terms of the notification issued by the Director, Academics BOSE on 24.01.2012, the classes for the Session 2011-13 started with effect from 01.02.2012. Meanwhile, the BOSE issued another notification dated 12.05.2012/17.05.2012, inviting applications for admission to the Course in question for the Session 2012-14. 7. The respondents herein challenged the aforesaid notification dated 12.05.2012/ 17.05.2012 in writ petition, OWP no. 729/2012, on the ground that they had not been allotted candidates for the Session 2011-13 in tune with their intake capacity and that unless that was done, the BOSE could not initiate the process for admission for the next Session. 7. The respondents herein challenged the aforesaid notification dated 12.05.2012/ 17.05.2012 in writ petition, OWP no. 729/2012, on the ground that they had not been allotted candidates for the Session 2011-13 in tune with their intake capacity and that unless that was done, the BOSE could not initiate the process for admission for the next Session. In the said writ petition, the respondents also prayed for issuance of mandamus to the following effect: a) To conduct second phase of counselling for admission of the students in ETT course for the Session 2011-13 forthwith and allot students to the petitioners-institutions to the extent of their intake capacity forthwith; or else b) Permit the petitioner-Institutions to admit the students to the extent of their intake capacity of 120 seats each and allow them to forward list of those candidates to the Board for regularising their admission on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the Board and on such regularisation, allow them to sit in the examination as and when said examination is conducted by the respondents for the students who have been already admitted to the ETT course for the session 2011-13 in the petitioner-Institutions, as well as in other Institutions, conducting the said ETT course; c) The respondents be also directed to allow those candidates to pay the fee of Rs.19,300/- in instalments after their admission is made or regularised by them in the manner indicated above." 8. The aforesaid writ petition first came up for consideration before the learned Writ Court on 08.06.2012. While issuing notice, the learned Writ Court directed the appellants herein to consider the request of the respondents vis-a-vis allotment of candidates in ETT Course for the Session 2011-13 to the extent of their intake capacity and also provide candidates from reserved category and in the process all requisite formalities including counselling be completed within a period of four weeks. 9. Subsequently, the respondents herein moved another CMP, bearing no.1007/2013, which came up for consideration before the learned Writ Court on 17.05.2013. The Court issued notice and ordered the appellants to issue Roll Number Slips in favour of the candidates belonging to the petitioners Institutes so that they appear in the examination scheduled to be held with effect from 20th of May, 2013 at their own risk and responsibility. The Court issued notice and ordered the appellants to issue Roll Number Slips in favour of the candidates belonging to the petitioners Institutes so that they appear in the examination scheduled to be held with effect from 20th of May, 2013 at their own risk and responsibility. It was, however, made clear in the order that the same shall not create any interest or right in favour of the candidates of the petitioners-Institutes. The aforesaid order dated 17.05.2013 is impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 11. At the outset, it needs a mention here that the appellants, namely, the respondents in the writ petition, have not filed their reply affidavit to the writ petition so far. In this appeal they have raised the pleas which relate to the merits of the case in the writ petition. It is stated that the students of the petitioner-Institutes are not eligible to appear in the examination in question alongwith other eligible candidates as they have neither applied within the cut off date, nor were admitted to the ETT Course; they are not registered/enrolled with the appellant, i.e., the BOSE; that when the application forms were invited from candidates, no candidate had opted for the first respondent-Institute; whereas only 89 candidates had opted for the second respondent-Institute; that the examination is to be conducted in respect of only those candidates whose admission process had been completed upto the last cut off date and that the respondents have no right to pray that examination be conducted of other candidates who had neither applied within the cutoff date, nor had been admitted to the ETT Course by the BOSE, It is further submitted that, pursuant to the interim direction of the learned Writ Court, dated 08.06.2012, the matter was taken up by the BOSE with the Government. It is submitted that, in the meantime, a meeting was held between the promoters of non-government ETT Institutes and the officials of BOSE for resolving the controversy raised by the institutions regarding admission of candidates on their own. It is submitted that, in the meantime, a meeting was held between the promoters of non-government ETT Institutes and the officials of BOSE for resolving the controversy raised by the institutions regarding admission of candidates on their own. Thereafter, a notification was issued by the Joint Secretary, BOSE, advising the Institutions to deposit certificates of candidates in original with the BOSE by or before 10.12.2012 so as to determine the eligibility of the candidates of different Institutions who were claimed to have been admitted by the promoters in their Institutions of their own after the cutoff date. It is stated that this was done in order to take up the matter with the Government for a decision in the matter. It is further stated that pursuant to direction contained in communication no. Edu-ETT/35/2009 dated 09.01.2013 received from the Government, the Board met on 31.01.2013, considered the issue and resolved that no examination be conducted of the candidates who had been admitted and enrolled by the promoters to ETT Institutions by the promoters for the Session 2011-13 of their own. The aforesaid decision was reiterated by the BOSE in its meeting of 12.04.2013 which was held pursuant to directions of the Government. It is also the case of the appellants that in terms of the Statutes, a student admitted in the ETT Institute should have 180 working days in each subject regularly and 70% attendance so as to earn eligibility to appear in the examination. Since the students have not at all been admitted to the ETTC, the question of attending/pursuing their courses would not arise. It is submitted that allowing the candidates to sit in the examination would amount to disobeying the Statutes of the BOSE to which it owes its existence. The contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has virtually allowed the writ petition, as the final relief has been granted without considering the matter on merits. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order has virtually allowed the writ petition, inasmuch as the appellants have been directed to issue Roll Number slips to the candidates who have not at all been admitted to the ETT Course by the BOSE. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, AIR 2005 SC 284 , the learned Sr. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, AIR 2005 SC 284 , the learned Sr. AAG submitted that grant of final relief at the interim stage has been held to be not proper. 13. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal, being against an interim order, was not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that pursuant to the Court order dated 08.06.2012, the respondents submitted the list of candidates equal to their intake capacities alongwith eligibility forms to the Joint Secretary, JK BOSE for further necessary action at his end. Thereafter, a meeting of the promoters of ETTs and the BOSE authorities was held on 29.11.2012 in which various issues came for discussion. Learned counsel referred to the minutes of the said meeting which are signed by the promoters and the Secretary, BOSE. On the controversy in question, the minutes record as under: "It was agreed unanimously in principle that the eligibility notification for such of the eligible candidates whose list stands already submitted to the Board of School Education by the promoters of Non-governmental ETTC Institutions for the Session 2011-13 subject to the condition that there shall be no compromise whatsoever for the entertainment/acceptance of any supplementary list of ETTC candidates, if at all any of the promoter may attempt to do so. It was further accepted and accomplished by both the parties that there shall be no replacement of candidate or candidates of the list which is already with the Board whatever the circumstances." Mr. Qayoom also referred to Notification dated 30.11.2012 issued by the BOSE pursuant to the agreement reached at between the parties, as aforesaid, wherein the Heads of Non-government ETT Institutions were advised to furnish the certificates mentioned in the Notification of such candidates who had been admitted to First Year ETTC Session 2011-13 by the concerned ETT Institutions on their own and whose lists had already been submitted to the BOSE Office, in order to determine their eligibility. Relying on the aforesaid minutes and the notification dated 30.11.2012, Mr. Qayoom submitted that there was an agreement reached at between the appellants and respondent Institutes that such of the candidates would stand admitted and, therefore, the appellants cannot resile from such agreement. Relying on the aforesaid minutes and the notification dated 30.11.2012, Mr. Qayoom submitted that there was an agreement reached at between the appellants and respondent Institutes that such of the candidates would stand admitted and, therefore, the appellants cannot resile from such agreement. His further argument is that since the Examination notification was issued and the appellants refused to issue Roll Number slips in favour of these candidates, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Writ Court. 14. The above submissions made by the learned counsel and the issues sought to be raised before us can only be gone into and determined by the Writ Court. It is reiterated that the appellants have not yet filed their reply affidavit before the Writ Court. The controversy raised before us in this appeal lies in a narrow compass. The only question to be determined is whether the order passed by the learned Writ Court at the interim stage is sustainable. But before we deal with that question, the objection to the maintainability of the present appeal raised by Mr. Qayoom needs to be considered. 15. The learned Sr. AAG, placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of J&K v. Dr. Gh. Hassan Hajini, 1997 SLJ 374, submitted that appeal against an interlocutory order has been held to be maintainable. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench relied on an earlier decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Astral Trade v. M/s Haji Mohammad Shaban Dar, SLJ 1982 J&K 124 : 2010 (8) JKJ HC-444 (FB), wherein it was held that the departure from the normal Rule that interlocutory orders are not appealable can be made when order is manifestly wrong or erroneous. Since in the present case, as would be shown below, the order has been passed without determining the vital issue of legality or otherwise of the admission of the candidates. Hence it was wrong to direct the respondents to issue Roll number slips in their favour and/or to allow them to sit in the Examinations. Therefore, it is held that appeal against such an order is maintainable. 16. The issue is not res integra; In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi. Hence it was wrong to direct the respondents to issue Roll number slips in their favour and/or to allow them to sit in the Examinations. Therefore, it is held that appeal against such an order is maintainable. 16. The issue is not res integra; In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi. (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations." The learned Sr. AAG, has also cited another judgment of the Apex Court in Regional Officer, CBSE v. KU, Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719 and another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M. M. Kumar, CJ, was a member) in Kashmir Women's College of Education v. Kashmir University, 2012(III) SLJ 755 : 2012 (1) JKJ HC-100. The ratio laid down in these judgments falls within the realm of merits of the main writ petition. Therefore, we deem it just and proper not to comment on the application of these judgments in the present case. 17. The ratio laid down in these judgments falls within the realm of merits of the main writ petition. Therefore, we deem it just and proper not to comment on the application of these judgments in the present case. 17. In the instant case, the principal relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the appellants to permit the petitioner-Institutions to admit the students to the extent of their intake capacity of 120 seats each and allow them to forward list of those candidates to the Board for regularising their admission on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the Board, and on such regularisation, allow them to sit in the examination as and when said examination is conducted by the respondents for the students who have already been admitted to the ETT course for the session 2011-13 in the petitioner-Institutions, as well as in other Institutions, conducting the said ETT course. The right of the respondent-institutions to admit the students of their own, without resort to the selection process undertaken by the BOSE, is still pending before the Writ Court and is yet to be determined. 18. It is true that pursuant to the interim direction passed by the learned Writ Court, the respondents have presented lists of those candidates to the appellants, but the question whether that fact by itself would entitle the candidates to sit in the examination has to be gone into and determined by the Writ Court. 19. We are conscious that the matter involves urgency. We are also convinced that the order of the nature it has actually been passed by the learned Writ Court could not have been passed at this stage, unless the issues involved in the writ petition had been determined. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct listing of the writ petition for its final decision in the first week of June, 2013 so that the matter is finally determined. 20. Accordingly, allowing this appeal, we set aside order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court. 21. We wish to make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy. The Writ Court shall proceed without being influenced by the order in hand. 22. 20. Accordingly, allowing this appeal, we set aside order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court. 21. We wish to make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy. The Writ Court shall proceed without being influenced by the order in hand. 22. We direct the Registry to list the writ petition before the learned Writ Court in the next regular cause list. Keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter, we request the learned Writ Court to hear the matter finally and decide it before the ensuing summer vacation. If the arguments are not concluded on the date it is listed, it shall be kept on Board to be taken up the day following. The appellants herein shall file their reply affidavit by Friday, 31st May, 2013 with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the writ-petitioners who shall file rejoinder, if any, by the date of hearing before the Court, with an advance copy thereof to the counsel for respondents in the writ petition. 23. Disposed of accordingly alongwith the connected CMPs. No order as to costs.