- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J, By order dated 4-7-1974 both the appellant and the respondent No. 3 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in C T Grade in Sri Siddheshwari Junior High School, Gopalpur Bijuri, district Fatehpur (hereinafter referred to as the school ). In pursuance of the said appointment order the appellant joined the school 10-7-1974, whereas the respondent No, 3 joined on 9-7-1974. This school was subsequently raised to the status of High School in October, 1974, The question of seniority as between the appellant and the respondent No. 3 was decided by the Committee of Management of the school (hereinafter referred to as the Management) vide order, dated 10-12-1980, declaring the respondent No, 3 as senior, to the appellant. Being aggrieved by it the appellant filed an appeal before the District Inspector of Schools, Fatebpur (hereinafter referred as the D. I. O. S.) under Regulation 3 (f) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. By any other resolution dated 27-12- 1980 the Management promoted the respondent No. 3 to L. T. Grade subject to the concurrence/approval of the D, L O. S. dismissed the appeal of the appellant on 9-7-1981. On the same date he approved the promotion of the respondent No. 3 to L. T, Grade. Being aggrieved by these two orders of the D. I. p. S. the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9808 of 1981 before this Court, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 2-12-1994. Hence this appeal.
(2.) AS the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal, this issue, as such, has to be decided at the thresh-hold. Chapter VIII Rule S of the rules of the Court, which contains the provision for special appeal, bars an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, which was filed against the appellate or revisional order. In the instant case writ petition was filed against two orders of the same date (9-7-1981), passed by the D. L O. S. By one of there orders the D. I. O. S. dismissed the appeal of the appellant which was filed against the order of the Management holding the respondent No. 3 as senior to him. This order is an appellate order. No special appeal can lie against the judgment of the learned Single Judge deciding the writ petition filed against such an order. But the other order of the O. I. O. S. whereby he approved the promotion of the respondent No. 3 to L. T. Grade was passed neither in an appeal nor in a revision. Promotion from C T. grade to L. T. grade doss not depend on seniority alone, although seniority is one of the factors to be taken into account while making such a promotion. The order of promotion is neither consequential nor ministerial in nature. This is clear from Regulation 6 (2) of Chapter II, which has laid down that "selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service-standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity". Both the orders of the D. I. O. S. impugned in the writ petition were substantive and independent orders and none of them was a consequential or ministerial order, Against such orders appellant should have filed two separate writ petitions. But for the sake of convenience, as the parties were the same and the relevant facts were also to a great extent the same, the appellant filed a single writ, petition, challenging both the orders. This writ petition was duly entertained and has been decided. If more than one case is decided by a single judgment, in law such a judgment shall be treated to consist of as many judgments as there are cases disposed of thereby. In this connection reference may be made to Gumbum Roadways Ltd. v. Somu Transport Ltd. , AIR 1966 SC 1366, wherein it was laid down as under:- "even although all the appeals with respect to one route may have been disposed of by a single appellate order in form, in reality the appellate order consists of as many orders as there are appeal disposed of thereby ' It was accordingly held by the Supreme Court that if only one party has challenged the order of the appellate Tribunal before the High Court by means of a writ petition, High Court cannot interfere in favour of those persons, who had not approached it. It was, therefore, laid down that the remand should only be confined to those parties, which approached the Court. Same principle will apply to a case, whereby a writ petition in which more than one substantive order are challenged, is decided. In such a case part of the judgment deciding the controversy pertaining to one of the impugned orders stands on its own strength and is severable from the other part. In the instant case the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has decided the writ petition against both the orders, are independent of each other and are neither consequential nor ministerial in nature. Special appeal will, therefore, lie against the judgment of a learned Single Judge deciding the writ petition against the order of the D. I. O. S. granting approval for promotion of respondent No. 3 to L. T. Grade. For the reasons given above, this appeal, as against that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the order of the D. i. O. S. passed in the appeal in the matter of seniority was upheld, is not maintain able in view of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and is accordingly dismissed. But such an appeal against the other part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the orders promoting the respondent No. 3 to L. T. Grade have been upheld, is maintainable and, therefore, has to be admitted. We order accordingly. Appeal dismissed. .;