This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-11-1995 of a learned Single Judge, whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by Udal Prasad, respondent No. 2 in this ap peal, quashed the order of the District In spector of Schools, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the D. I. O. S. dated 24-11-1995 and remanded the case to the D. I. O. S. for deciding the dispute of seniority between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 in the light of the observations and the direc tions contained in the judgment.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has been given in a Writ Petition, which was filed against the order of the D. I. O. S. passed in exercise of the appellate power. Before proceeding to decide this appeal on merit, it is appropriate that the preliminary objec tion should be decided at the thresh-hold.

3. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules provides for special appeal from a judgment, not being judgments men tioned therein, of one Judge. One of the judgment from which the special appeal does not lie is a judgment by one Judge in a writ petition filed against the appellate or revisional order. If the order of the D. I. O. S. , which was challenged in the writ petition, was passed in exercise of the appellate power, undoubtedly this appeal is not main tainable. But that is not the position here. Under Regulation 3 (1) (e) or Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. In termediate Education Act the dispute

about the seniority of the teachers is to be decided by the Committee of Management of the College. Person aggrieved by such a decision of the Committee of Management can file an appeal under Regulation 3 (1) (f) before the appellate authority. Earlier the D. I. O. S. was the appellate authority; but Regulation 3 (1) (f) was amended vide notification dated 22-8-1992, whereby Regional Deputy Director of Education in place of the D. I. O. S. has been made the appellate authority. The result is that with effect from 22-8-1992 the D. I. O S ceased to been appellate authority. In the instant case the D. I. O. S. passed the order impugned in the writ petition on 24-11-1995 on which date he was not exercising any appellate power. He passed that order pursuant to the judg ment of this Court dated 8-8-1995, whereby he was required to decide the dispute of seniority between the appellant and respon dent No. 2. The D. I. O. S. s order impugned in the writ petition was, therefore, not an appellate order. Hence this appeal is main tainable. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is accordingly rejected.

4. Both the appellant and respondent No. 2 were appointed in 1975 as teachers in Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saidpur, District Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the College ). Their appoint ments were also approved by the D. I. O. S. On 20-5-1976 a draft seniority list of the teachers of the College was published invit ing objections. The Committee of Manage ment of the College approved the draft seniority list on 2-7-1976. The approved list was also published. In the said list the respondent No. 2 was shown at serial No. 2, whereas the appellant was placed at serial No. 4. The respondent No. 2 was thus shown as senior to the appellant in the seniority list. As on 30-6-1992 the regular Principal of the College was to retire, the D. I. O. S. asked the said Principal to send the seniority list to him for selection of the senior most teacher for appointment ad hoc Principal. The then Principal submitted a seniority list to the D. I. O. S. in which the appellant was shown senior to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 challenged that list before the D. I. O. S. The D. I. O. S. not having decided the said representation, respondent No. 2 filed a Wr