SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. D I O S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Appellants. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State Respondents. Shri Akhileshwar Singh appears for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) Shri Akhileshwar Singh appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the impugned order is not a 'judgment'. It does not decide the rights of the parties or settles any issue either way and thus the Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 is not maintainable.

(3.) By impugned order learned Single Judge has directed the District Inspector of Schools, Balia to reply as to how the payment of salary could be? released to the Petitioners after the report was submitted to the Director on 28.2.1998. It is contended that in the report submitted by the Director it was found that the appointments of many teachers including the Petitioner Appellants were made in excess of the sanctioned strength and that no procedure was followed in their appointments.