This appeal is directed against the order dated 20th July, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No, 25722 of 1994 by which writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and order dated 18th July, 1994 passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Director, Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, has been quashed and respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to continue on the post of Principal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection, questioning the maintainability of the special appeal. The submission of the learned counsel is that the order dated 18th July, 1994* has been passed by respondent No, 2 in exercise of the appellate powers as provided in Regulation-3 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education, Act, 1921. As the order impugned in this appeal has been passed in a writ petition arising out of an appellate order the appeal is not legally maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter-VIIl of the Rules of the Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that the order of the Deputy Director, Education dated 18th July, 1994 has been passed in exercise of powers contemplated in para 7 of the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order of 1981 as amended by 4th Removal of Difficulties Order of 1982 which provides that any dispute concerned with the promotion or direct recruitment, under this order, shall be referred to the Deputy Director, Education for a decision. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as there was a dispute regarding the opportunity to be given to the senior-most teacher to officiate as Principal of the College and the appellant was the senior-most, he raised this issue against the appointment of respondent No, 1 on the post and it was not by way of appeal. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Court should determine the real character of the proceeding before respondent No. 2 on basis of the contents of document filed and not on basis of the wrong provisions mentioned by the appellant, who is a layman, or from the fact that document filed has been described as appeal under misconception. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Committee of Management decides the question of seniority as an employee and not as an authority. The provisions creating right of appeal or revision presupposes the existence of a decision by some authority which may be challenged. In substance, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that for attracting the bar against appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge under Clause (b) of Sec tion 5 of U. P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patents Appeal) Act, 1962, there should be two authorities, on-3 deciding the dispute initially, from which revision or appeal could b?, Sled and then decided by another authority who is conferred with the appellant or rovisional power. The learned counsel in support of this contention has mentioned the object or reason behind enacting clause (a) of aforesaid Section 5, prohibiting the appeal from the award, judgment or order of a Tribunal, Court a Statutory Authority. The submission is that the Tribunal, Court or Statutory Authority are normally presided over by the persons hiving judicial experience and the right of special appeal has been taken away in such cases as the officers are supposed to decide the dispute judicially. Whereas in other cases as the orders are passed generally by executive officers the right of special appeal has been taken away only in those cases where the order of learned Judge has been passed in writ petitions challenging orders of appellate or revisional authority and not in cases where the order of initial authority has been challenged. The learned counsel has submitted tint the Committee of Management cannot be termed as an authority as it does not exercise any fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document