KAUSHAL KISHORE SING Vs. SHUBH HARAN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20th July, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No, 25722 of 1994 by which writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and order dated 18th July, 1994 passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Director, Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, has been quashed and respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to continue on the post of Principal.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection, questioning the maintainability of the special appeal. THE submission of the learned counsel is that the order dated 18th July, 1994* has been passed by respondent No, 2 in exercise of the appellate powers as provided in Regulation-3 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education, Act, 1921. As the order impugned in this appeal has been passed in a writ petition arising out of an appellate order the appeal is not legally maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter-VIIl of the Rules of the Court.

(3.) SO far as the contention that the Committee of Management is not an authority and hence an order passed by the Deputy Director, Education in appeal from an order of the Committee of Management should not be treated to be an appellate order for purposes of this special appeal, cannot be accepted. The provisions of law are very clear and unambiguous in this regard and are not required to be interpreted in the manner suggested on behalf of appellant. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to enter into the question as to whether the Committee of Management is an authority or not. SO long as the provisions contained in Regulation-3 of Chapter-II of the Regulations exists, seniority list has to be prepared for each grade of teachers by Committee of Management and Clause (f) thereof provides that if any teacher is aggrieved by such seniority list he may file an appeal before the Deputy Director, Education within 15 days and such appeal shall be decided after hearing the concerned parties. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the relief sought in the appeal was for changing the seniority list prepared by the Committee of Management and Deputy Director, Educa tion has by order dated 18th July, 1994 altered the seniority list and granted relief as claimed by the appellant. The Deputy Director of Educa tion is an authority and he in exercise of the appellate powers decided the appeal and it is sufficient to attract the bar against special appeal. It is not necessary, in our opinion that the Committee of Management should also be an authority as normally understood in law.