Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, CJ.

Whether an Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against an order passed by a learned single Judge in a Review Petition declining to review the order is maintainable or not is the question involved in this Appeal referred to by a Division bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement.

The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7723 of 1998. She is a retired teacher in the 4th respondent institution. She filed the Writ Petition impleading the State Andhra Pradesh, represented by it's Secretary, Education Department, Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Educational Officer as respondents 1 to 3 respectively for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pay fixation without reference to the fact whether the post held by her is aided or unaided and for a direction to the 3rd respondent-District Educational officer, Hyderabad District to grant her the scale of Rs.1550-3050 w.e.f. 1.6.1989 and grant the pay in the revised pay scales of 1993 and fix her pension and pensionary benefits and for other consequential benefits.

S.R. Nayak, J after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable by order-dated 24.3.2000.

The relevant portion of the order reads thus: Although the above noted reliefs are sought the respondents 1 to 3, the Governmental authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to trace the obligation of any of the Governmental authorities either to pay the salary in the time scale claimed by the petitioner or the power of the Governmental authorities to direct the private management, the 4th respondent herein, to extend the pay scales claimed by the petitioner with reference to any provision in the A.P. Education Act or other statute. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, 3rd respondent herein, acted illegally in rejecting the request of the petitioner to direct the management of the 4th respondent-School to fix her pay in the time scale of Rs.1550-3050.

It seems to my mind that the respondents 1 to 3, the Government authorities, are impleaded as party respondents only to maintain the writ petition. This Writ Petition does not involve enforcement of any public law obligation against any of the official respondents. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner enforcing her rights, if any, against the 4th respondent - School in an appropriate legal action, if she is so advised. All the contentions, claims and the Counter claims of the petitioner and the 4th respondent taken in their respective pleadings are kept open to be agitated by the parties at an appropriate stage. No costs.

Against the aforesaid order, the appellant herein filed a review petition being Review W.P.M.P.No.13881 of 2000 on 24.4.2002 and the learned single Judge dismissed the review petition in the following manner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any clerical mistake warranting review of the order of this Court dated 24.3.2001 made in W.P.No.7723 of 1998. The Review W.P.M.P. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

Against the said order, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

When the Writ Appeal came up for admission, noticing conflicting decisions on the issue by different Full Benches of this Court a Division Bench comprising of Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, CJ and Ghulam Mohammed, J, has referred the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question. The reference order reads thus:

Whether an Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the dismissal of Review Petition is maintainable or not is the question involved in this Appeal. There are