An intra-court appeal is not maintainable against orders of a learned Single Judge under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, as per the Full Bench ruling prohibiting such appeals post-amendment of Section 100-A of the CPC.

Judgment :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred against a judgment/order dated 09.05.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No.119 of 2024 filed under Section 24 -C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short ‘the Act’).

3. When this appeal was taken up on 07.10.2024, its maintainability was questioned on behalf of the respondents on the ground that an intra-court appeal would not lie against an appellate order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court under Section 24 -C of the Act, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Ori 46 (AIR 2009 Ori 46), affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Saud v. Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz: (2010) 13 SCC 517

4. Mr. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in response to the said submission on the point of maintainability, had relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Prasanna Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha and others dated 17.01.2024 passed in W.A. No.666 of 2023.

5. In case of Mahammed Saud (FB) (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 46 as under:

“46. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court we are of the view that after introduction of Section 100 -A with effect from 1.7.2002, no Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a learned Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.”

6. In Prasanna Kumar Sahu (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after noticing an order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in case of Arabinda Panda and another v. The Director, Higher Education, Odisha and others (dated 29.09.2021 in W.A. No.143 of 2016), has held in paragraph 18 as under:

“18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.143 of 2016, relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz, 2008(II) OLR (FB) 725, has already entertained the writ appeal holding the same as maintainable, this Court is not inclined to take a different view than the one already taken. On a scrutiny of the decisions rendered in Rabindranath @ Rabindranath v. Bijay Kumar Bhuyan, 2016 (II) ILR CUT 283, Jyotshna Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR CUT 869 : 2018 (II) OLR 1 and Shradhakar Mohanty v. Management of Cuttack Municipal Corporation [W.A. No.122 of 2013, disposed of on 01.11.2023] on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent no.4-Sanjaya Kumar Nayak, it appears that the same have been rendered under the special statute, for which such decisions are distinguishable. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ appeals are maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no.4-Sanjaya Kumar Nayak with regard to maintainability, is accordingly rejected. Hence, the writ appeals shall be decided on merits.”

7. For the benefit of quick reference, we consider it apt to reproduce at this stage the orders dated 29.09.2021 and 27.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Arabinda Panda (supra), which read thus:

29.09.2021

“1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 concerning the maintainability of the present appeal. He sought to argue on the strength of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr