ORDER

We have heard the counsel on both sides.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench dated April 3, 1996 made in Special Civil appeal Nos. 1 & 2 of 1995. The facts are not in dispute. The controversy relates to the preparation of the seniority list of the engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch). In W.P.No. 560/79 by order dated October 6, 1988 the Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect in terms of the amended Rules as unconstitutional; it accordingly quashed the list and directed preparation of the seniority list afresh to determine the inter se seniority on that basis and to grant promotion to the appellants within the specified time. The same order came to be reiterated by order of another Division Bench dated September 9, 1989 made in W.P. No. 1074/80. It was further reiterated in the order dated March 22, 1990. When the seniority list came to be prepared, the contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the "Act"). The learned single Judge on consideration of the merits in the seniority held that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and gave directions as under :

"In Gyaneshwar s case, only retrospectivity of these amendments was challenged and, therefore, it was felt by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that retrospectivity of these amendments has already been held to be ultra vires in Kailash Chand Goyal s case and so, it had not been declared as such afresh. In that case, the notifications whereby amendments were introduced were not challenged but only their retrospectivity was challenged and, therefore, the decision of this Court in Gyaneshwar s case does not hold the field. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal s case (supra) and in Kailash Chand Goyal s case, the impugned notifications Annexures 5 to 6 have been quashed in their entirety and so, k the seniority of the petitioner has to be determined on the basis of the determined on the basis of the directions given by this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal s case (supra) and promotions have to be accorded accordingly. Of course, it appears quite just and reasonable that the non-petitioners did not intend to disobey the directions given by this Court on account of the legal advice that has been tendered to them and on account of certain interpretations put to the judgment rendered in Kailash Chand Goyal s case (supra) on the basis of Gyaneshwar s case (supra) and as some confusion prevailed with the non-petitioners on account of that, they could not comply this order. However, the non-petitioners are directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 22.3.1990 by giving effect to the ratio of the decision that has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal s case (supra) and the seniority list should be prepared as directed in the judgment in Kailash Chand Goyal s case (supra) and promotions should be accorded accordingly. If this order is not complied with within a period of six months from today, the petitioner will be free to move a contempt petition afresh against the non-petitioners."

3. The State had filed appeal against these directions. A preliminary objection was taken on the maintainability of the appeal and also arguments were advanced. The Division Bench while holding the appeal as not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act, held that the appeal would be maintainable as a Letter Patent Appeal as the direction issued by the learned single Judge would be a judgment within the meaning of Clause (18) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the directions issued by the learned single Judge. Thus these appeals by special leave.

4. The question is: whether an appeal against the directions issued