JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

This intra court appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 challenging an Order dated November 16, 2021, passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CPAN No. 2053 of 2013 arising out of an Order dated December 24, 2010 in WPA No. 25988 of 2010.

2. By the ‘Impugned Order’ dated November 16, 2021, the Hon’ble Single Judge refused to recall the Order dated December 24, 2010 for the reasons stated therein. The application for recalling being CAN 1 of 2015 was itself filed 5 years after the date of passing of the Order in 2010. The Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the contempt application being CPAN No. 2053 of 2013 by directing the District Inspector (DI) of Schools (SE), Nadia/appellant to comply with the directions within 4 weeks from the date of the ‘Impugned Order’.

3. The issue in the writ petitions was regarding the failure on the part of the DI to approve of the appointment of the writ petitioners/non-teaching staff, who worked at the school in issue for long despite the Order dated December 24, 2010. Subsequently, the DI in terms of his communication dated January 28, 2018 approved of the petitioners’ appointment but even then failed to comply with its own Notification.

4. The present appeal being MAT 475 of 2022 was filed only challenging the Impugned Order dated November 16, 2021 passed in CPAN No. 2053 of 2013 and not against the Order dated December 24, 2010 passed in WPA No. 25988 of 2010.

5. A point of maintainability has been strongly urged by the writ petitioners/respondents as well as the respondent No.8, being the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school in issue since the parent order dated December 24, 2010 has not been challenged in the appeal. Hence the issue o maintainability is adjudicated as a preliminary issue by this Court.

6. Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants argued that the Parent Order dated December 24, 2010 relied on the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court (U.P. Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors.) reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92 is no longer good law and the same has been reiterated in a 3-Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2008) SCC 1 at paragraph 92. Therefore, the failure to challenge the same in the present appeal is of no consequence to the maintainability of the appeal. In Dayanand (Supra) at paragraph 92, it has been unequivocally held that the comments and observations made by the 2-Judge Bench in Pooran Chandra Pandey (Supra) should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunals and other Judicial fora nor they should be relied upon or made the basis for bypassing the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.

7. Furthermore, the Constitution Bench Judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 was not considered in Pooran Chandra Pandey (Supra).

8. On merits he also submitted that since the contempt application was filed on November 27, 2013, almost 3 years after passing of the Order dated December 24, 2010, the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, should have been dismissed in limine.

9. On the ground of maintainability, he argued that the decision reported in 1996 (1) CHN 411, Robin Paul & Ors. Vs. Kumkum Mittal & Ors. at paragraphs 30 to 37 cannot be relied upon to argue the maintainability of the present appeal. It has been strenuously argued that in the case of Robin Paul (Supra) an appeal was filed under Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a Civil Suit and was not a Judgment/Order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question that fell for consideration in Robin Paul (Supra) was that whether an Order passed in review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC. In such a case it