B.D.Awasthi and others vs State of U.P.& others

A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of this Special Appeal. The Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd February, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7066 of 1986: Dr. B.D. Awasthi and others v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and other connected writ petitions. The appellants had challenged the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal.

The preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability of this special appeal is based on the respondents relying on the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of said Rule, the Special Appeal is not maintainable. In order to properly appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 8, which reads as follows:

�5. Special Appeal An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act) of one judge.�

In the instant case, the learned Single Judge was hearing Writ Petition in respect of Judgment passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. A reading of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules clearly show that Special Appeal against the judgment in a writ petition preferred against the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is excluded. That being the position, we are satisfied that the preliminary objection deserves to be upheld.

Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his plea, has cited the following decisions:

(1) (1992)2 UPLBEC 888: 1992(10) LCD 488 Azmat Yar Khan and others v. Returning Officer, Nagarpalika, Bisalpur District Pilibhit,

(2) 1993(1) Allh, Rent Cases 121, Sudershan Singh Bedi v. Addl District Magistrate (Rent Control Eviction Officer) Varanasi, and,

(3) 1993 (1) Allh. Rent Cases 265, Ram Chandra v. Smt. Shakuntala Jaiswal and others.

Since the preliminary objection has been upheld by us, we are not entering into the merits of the case and as to the correctness or otherwise of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Special Appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.

(Special appeal dismissed)