JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.11.2015 made in W.P.No.37605 of 2015.) Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 26.11.2015 recorded on W.P.No.37605 of 2015. This appeal is by the third party, after seeking leave from this Court. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge had directed the State Authorities to grant approval to the appointment of the writ petitioner (D.Shaby). 3. During the pendency of this appeal, one more person - S.N.Marbin Britto also filed petition for impleadment (being C.M.P.No.3481 of 2022) which was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2022. Lastly, one more person requested for impleadment, as reflected in order dated 04.08.2022, which has not come on record, however we have permitted Mr.I.Periyaswamy, learned advocate, to address the Court, so also Father Sylvester Morais. 4. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the impleaded parties, so also learned advocate for the original writ petitioner. 5. In view of the final order which we intend to record, detailed submissions on behalf of respective parties are not reflected in this order. 6. The writ petitioner had prayed for the following relief:- “Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to approve and regularize the petitioner appointment as Assistant Professor in English in St.Jude's College, Thoothoor, in the sanctioned retirement vacancy of Mr.Franklin with effect from 04.01.2010 with monetary and all other attendance benefits in the light of approval given by the 1st respondent to the similarly placed persons like Dr.D.Thampi Dharmaraj Kurupatham in Na.Ka.No. 24810/F2/2015 dated 20.10.2015 in W.P.No. 16897 of 2015 dated 15.06.2015 and C.Anuba and 10 others, in W.P.Nos., 11004 to 11014 of 2005 dated 29.06.2015.” 7. The operative part of the order of learned Single Judge, reads as under:- “11. In view of the above, the first and second respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as he was appointed against the regular vacancy due to retirement/death, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 8. In view of the above, the first and second respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as he was appointed against the regular vacancy due to retirement/death, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 8. In the appeal filed by one D.L.Jaisy, it is pointed out, how the writ petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed by her. It was also attempted to argue how the appellant was entitled for approval of her appointment, instead of the writ petitioner. 9. Learned advocate for the impleaded party has also attempted to submit, how, neither the writ petitioner nor the appellant are entitled to seek relief, as asked for by them. 10. It is a matter of record that, though the order of learned Single Judge was stayed by the Division Bench as back as on 14.03.2016, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, no representation was made on behalf of the writ petitioner. This Court, therefore had, passed an order on 14.07.2022. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has thereafter appeared and has made his submissions. 11. By the detailed paper books tendered to the Court, it is pointed out that, number of petitions are filed by the original writ petitioner, so also the newly impleaded respondent in appeal. The details with regard to the other petitions filed by the appellant are also put to the notice of the Court. 12. On conjoint consideration of various other litigations, learned advocate for the original writ petitioner is not in a position to dispute that, the writ petitioner was not entitled to relief as claimed by her in this writ petition. This being the position, the order under challenge needs to be quashed and set aside, on that count alone. 13. Since the order under challenge is being interfered with on this count alone, whether the appellant or other private respondent in this appeal was entitled to what they have claimed, need not be gone into. It can not be the subject matter of the writ petition from which this appeal has arisen and therefore it can not be the subject matter of this appeal. The claim and the counterclaim by the parties are therefore not examined in this appeal. 14. It can not be the subject matter of the writ petition from which this appeal has arisen and therefore it can not be the subject matter of this appeal. The claim and the counterclaim by the parties are therefore not examined in this appeal. 14. We also note that, Father Sylvester Morais, who has introduced himself as the founder member of the institute, has also addressed this Court, how the say of the appellant was not right qua her appointment. As noted above, the point for consideration in this appeal is not, whether the claim of the appellant is right or the claim of the other private respondent is right. The only point for consideration is whether the petitioner could have claimed the relief as asked for by her and whether such relief could have been granted. Since, even the learned advocate for the writ petitioner is not in a position to dispute that she was not entitled to relief claimed by her no further scrutiny is required in the matter. The other material and arguments not being relevant for the point at issue, are neither reflected, nor discussed in this order, leaving parties to claim appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed:- 15.1 This appeal is allowed. 15.2 The impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 15.3 W.P.No. 37605 of 2013 is dismissed. 15.4 No costs. Connected, C.M.Ps would not survive.