R.Dayal, J. - (1.) Following question has been referred by a Division Bench of this Court for decision by the full Bench: "Whether the Deputy Director of Education can be said to be functioning as a Tribunal within the meaning of Rule 5 in Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, while exercising the powers conferred on him under sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921."
(2.) This special appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed questioning the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-. A(7) of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.L. Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that the special appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as the Deputy Director of Education acts as a tribunal and no special appeal lies in respect of an order of a tribunal. Rule 5 reads as under: "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 Praclesh 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 purporied to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellaie or revisional jurisdiction under any such act of one Judge.
(3.) There is no dispute that no special appeal lies in respect of an order made by a Court or a tribunal and, as such, if the Deputy Director of Education whose order gave rise to the writ petition from which the special appeal arose, the present special appeal would not be maintainable. The learned counsel for the third respondent in support of his contention that the Deputy Director of Education is a tribunal referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Appeal No. 521 of 1994 (Committee of Management U.M. Vidyalaya, Khascgpur v. Slate of U.P.), 1994 All CJ 939, where it was held that while exercising power under Section 16-A(7) the Deputy Director of Education discharges his duties as a Tribunal. It was also observed in that judgment that similar view had been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Lal v. D.I.O.S. Azamgarh, 1994 All CJ 180. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench required reconsideration. The Division Bench was not inclined to follow the view taken in the former case and so referred the question set out in the beginning of this judgment for decision by a Full Bench.;