YOGESH KUMAR RAI Vs. SHYAM KARTIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. Dayal, Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ. Heard Sri R. P. Singh, Advocate on admis sion.

(2.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated 25th September, 1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rai was directed not to function as teacher in the Institution till further orders. THIS order was passed after directing the petitioner of the writ petition in which the impugned order was passed to serve the appellant personally within two weeks. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant did not have the opportunity of being heard in the matter at the time when the impugned order was passed and by the impugned order itself the appellant was afforded the opportunity of being heard and it was specifically men tioned that the impugned order would be operative till further orders. In our view, this order does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Ktiimji v. Java ban D. Kant a and another, AIR 1981 SC'l786, that whenever a Trial judge decides a controversy which af fects the valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within tiic meaning of the Letters Patent. It was further observed that every inter locutory order cannot be regarded as a judg ment but only those orders would be judg ment which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious in justice to the party concerned. On the basis of this authority, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the fact that the appellant was directed not to function as teacher in the Institution affects the rights of the appellant and as such the impugned order amounts to a judgment. However, we are unable to agree with this submission for the reason that though the order was passed affecting the vignts or' the appellant it did not amount to a judgment since no controversy was riecided and no controversy remains yet to be decided after the appellant files reply and avails of the opportunity of being heard -in the matte''. In this view, we find support from paragraph 24 in Society Madarsa Mazahir U/oom Mubarak Shah, Saharanpur v. Muzaffcr Hussain, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 277 where having regard to the facts of that case it was bovid that it was not necessary to decide the issue which was involved in the petition is the appellant in that case had the opportunity to submit counter-affidavit in reply to the petition and to move an applica tion to vacate the stay order. Further, it was observe that the learned Single Judge had by an ialerim order only stayed the opera tion of the impugned order and had not adjudicated upon any right of the parties.