- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Appellants herein filed a writ petition before this court challenging the orders of deployment/transfer of the employees of the New Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as N. B. I. ). In support of the writ petition their learned counsel made two submissions, viz. (i) Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as P. N. B.) has no power to pass the impugned orders, because the orders of deployment have to be passed by the Central Government under Clause 5 (4) of the Scheme issued under Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under takings) Act, 1980, and (ii) the employees of N. B. I have been discrimina ted against by P. N. B. Learned Single Judge rejected the first contention of the learned counsel, but allowed the writ petition on the second point Being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge In his judgment rejecting their first contention, they have filed this appeal.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against that part of the judgment whereby the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants- was rejected by the learned Judge, although the writ petition was allowed and the order impugned therein was quashed on other ground. An appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court lies against the judgment by which some rights of the parties are determined. No such appeal lies merely against the finding recorded in the judgment rejecting some conten tion of a party. In the instant case learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the appellants and has quashed the orders impugned therein. The appellants, therefore, cannot challenge the finding recorded by the learned Judge rejecting their one of the contentions. But it is open to them to support the judgment in the appeal filed against them even on the ground/issues which have been decided against them. Reference, in this connection, may be made to Workmen of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The National Grindlays Bank Ltd. , AIR 1975 SC 611. While hearing the connected Special Appeal No. 877 of 1993 filed by Punjab National Bank we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties even on the issue/ point which was decided by the learned Single Judge against the appellants herein and have decided the same on merits. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .;