- (1.) A point of jurisdiction is raised in regard to the order passed by learned Single Judge on 31st August, 2006, whereby an order of the Chancellor, i. e. His Excellency the Governor, was pronounced upon.
(2.) AS per determination made by Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, when his Lordship was the Chief Justice of this Court, on 20th October, 1992, such a writ petition would have to be heard by the Division Bench. The terms of determination are set below: "order In modification of my earlier orders dated July 17 and 28, 1992 passed in exercise of the powers under proviso (a) to Rule 2 Chapter V of the Rules of the Court, Volume I and all other provisions enabling in this behalf, I hereby order and direct that with effect from 28-10-92: (A) Writ petitions relating to services of the following categories shall also be heard and disposed of by an Hon'ble Judge sitting singly. : (i) Teachers upto Intermediate Colleges, (ii) Employees of class III and IV, including those educational institutions, and all other writ petitions relating to services shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges. (B) Writ petitions challenging orders of the Chancellor be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges. Dt. 20-10-1992 Sd M. K. Mukherjee, j Chief Justice. " If a decision is given by any Judge of the High Court contrary to the determination by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the authorities lay down that such an order would be without jurisdiction. We might point out that the purpose of keeping discipline within the High Court and enforcing the determination fixed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice can be equally served on the basis of the rule that such an over stepping of determination is a breach of the rule prevailing and is, therefore, liable in proper cases to be set aside. One would not necessarily have to say that the Hon'ble Judge lacked jurisdiction, and thus one would serve all proper and bona fide orders which parties had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction and had invited a decision.
(3.) HOWEVER, we are not free to say that the above rule is the correct one because the authorities bind us to say and pronounce in the other manner. The said authorities are as follows: ". . . . . . State v. Devi Dayal, reported in AIR (46)1959 Allahabad 421, a Division Bench judgment of this High Court; the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice and Ors. , reported at 1997 (1) LBESR 186 (All) : 1996 (II) A. W. C. 644, a Full Bench decision of this High Court, the judgment in the case of Chandra Bhushan Tiwari v. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported at (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2551, a judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court, the persurasive authority of the case of Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported at AIR 1990 Calcutta 168, a decision of the Division Bench of that High Court. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Inder Mani and Ors. v. Mateshwari Prasad and Ors. , given by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges reported at 1996 (6) Supreme Court Case 587; the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Ors. , given by the Supreme Court in a Bench of strength three reported at (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1. The case of Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra, a Supreme Court decision of a Bench of strength two reported at AIR 1987 Supreme Court 535, which is the closest on facts to our case. On the basis of these authorities the appeal is allowed.;