Honble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. P.N. Ojha in support of this appeal. Mr. Y.K. Srivastava appears for respondents.

2. Mr. Khare seeks to delete appellant No. 2. He is permitted to do so during the course of the day.

3. The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 8th October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The appellant herein is an educational institution, which filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39020 of 2007 with the prayer for mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to issue forms of High School Examination 2007 to it, allow its students to appear in the examination 2007 and to declare the result in time.

5. Mr. Khare submits that after filing of this petition the State Government had issued an order on 27th August, 2007 permitting the students to appear in the High School and Intermediate Board Examination, 2008. In view of this order the petition became infructuous. However, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter on the question how the recognition was granted to various schools. He appointed a committee and under his order dated 8.10.2007 obtained the report of that committee with respect to recognition; name of the institution; number of sanctioned sections; number of sanctioned teachers with their name, designation and addresses; the infrastructure available with the school including building, play ground, library, laboratory; number of sanctioned staff etc. The Court directed the matter to be listed on 6.11.2007 and the report covering at least 50 institutions was to be submitted on or before that date.

6. The principal grounds raised in this appeal are two. One, the petition has become infructuous. This is ground (b) of the memo of appeal. Ground (d) of the appeal is that the learned single Judge retained the matter though the roster had changed and the matter cannot be treated as part-heard or tied up.

7. As far as the first part of the order is concerned, learned Single Judge passed the order in the interest of education system for having good schools with proper facility but at the same time, he has gone beyond the frame of the petition. Any enquiry outside the scope of the petition was not called for. The learned Single Judge was not taking any public interest litigation; secondly, it is very clear that when the roster had changed, the matter at pre-admission stage cannot be treated as part-heard or tied up. They cannot be retained with the Judge unless allotted by the Chief Justice. The relevant rules from the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are Rule 14 of Chapter V on tied up cases and Rule 7 of Chapter VI on part-heard cases, which read as follows :

"14. Tied up cases.—(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.

(2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it."

"7. Part-heard cases.—A case which remains part-heard at the end of the day shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge or Judges concerned, be taken up first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Cause List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Every part-heard case entered in the list may, unless the Bench orders otherwise, be proceeded with whether any Advocate appearing in the case is present or not."

8. As far as the question with respect to pre-admission matters being part heard or tied up matters is concerned, the question is no longer res-integra and is answered in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice and others, 1996 A.W.C. 644. In that matter a writ petition was pending in this Court for admission. The matter was adjourned for about seven dates and an interim order was passed. On the app