R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the orders dated 23-8-1995, 7-2-1994 and 11-1-1993, contained in Annexures 11, 8 and 5 to the writ, petition respectively and further for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned stand ing counsel, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. The committee of Management and Sri Ram Singh, who have been impleaded as respondents, have been permitted, to be deleted from the array of the patties on the request made by the learned counsel for petitioner. By means of the order dated 5-2-1993, it was directed by this Court as under :- "Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner has alternative remedy to geek redress in this regard before the Deputy Director of Education The present petition is accordingly dismissed on this ground alone," i Petitioner in view of the aforesaid directions, of this Court preferred an appeal before the Dy. Director of Education on 30-9-1995, which was dismissed. Against the said order passed by the Dy Director of Education, petitioner preferred second appeal before respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent No. 1 has committed error, which is apparent on the face of the record in as much as the 2nd appeal filed by the petitioner legally maintainable and was not liable to be dismissed. The view taken to the contrary by res pondent No. 1 is wholly illegal. He has referred to and placed reliance upon paragraph? of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1982 as amended by Notification No.-Ma-723/XV/7-l (13) 82, dated 14-4-1982, which reads as under :- "(1) Every dispute connected with promotion or direct recruitment shall be referred to the Dy. Director of Education of the region concerned for decision. (1-A) An appeal against the decision of the Dy. Director of Edu cation may be made to the Director whose decision thereon shall be final."
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for petitioner in view of the aforesaid amended provision of the Order is well founded. THE view taken by the respondent No. 1 that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable is manifestly erroneous. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition deserves to be allowed.;