- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-11-1995 of a learned Single Judge, whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by Udal Prasad, respondent No. 2 in this ap peal, quashed the order of the District In spector of Schools, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the D. I. O. S. dated 24-11-1995 and remanded the case to the D. I. O. S. for deciding the dispute of seniority between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 in the light of the observations and the direc tions contained in the judgment.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has been given in a Writ Petition, which was filed against the order of the D. I. O. S. passed in exercise of the appellate power. Before proceeding to decide this appeal on merit, it is appropriate that the preliminary objec tion should be decided at the thresh-hold. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules provides for special appeal from a judgment, not being judgments men tioned therein, of one Judge. One of the judgment from which the special appeal does not lie is a judgment by one Judge in a writ petition filed against the appellate or revisional order. If the order of the D. I. O. S. , which was challenged in the writ petition, was passed in exercise of the appellate power, undoubtedly this appeal is not main tainable. But that is not the position here. Under Regulation 3 (1) (e) or Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. In termediate Education Act the dispute about the seniority of the teachers is to be decided by the Committee of Management of the College. Person aggrieved by such a decision of the Committee of Management can file an appeal under Regulation 3 (1) (f) before the appellate authority. Earlier the D. I. O. S. was the appellate authority; but Regulation 3 (1) (f) was amended vide notification dated 22-8-1992, whereby Regional Deputy Director of Education in place of the D. I. O. S. has been made the appellate authority. The result is that with effect from 22-8-1992 the D. I. O S ceased to been appellate authority. In the instant case the D. I. O. S. passed the order impugned in the writ petition on 24-11-1995 on which date he was not exercising any appellate power. He passed that order pursuant to the judg ment of this Court dated 8-8-1995, whereby he was required to decide the dispute of seniority between the appellant and respon dent No. 2. The D. I. O. S. 's order impugned in the writ petition was, therefore, not an appellate order. Hence this appeal is main tainable. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is accordingly rejected. Both the appellant and respondent No. 2 were appointed in 1975 as teachers in Kisan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saidpur, District Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the College ). Their appoint ments were also approved by the D. I. O. S. On 20-5-1976 a draft seniority list of the teachers of the College was published invit ing objections. The Committee of Manage ment of the College approved the draft seniority list on 2-7-1976. The approved list was also published. In the said list the respondent No. 2 was shown at serial No. 2, whereas the appellant was placed at serial No. 4. The respondent No. 2 was thus shown as senior to the appellant in the seniority list. As on 30-6-1992 the regular Principal of the College was to retire, the D. I. O. S. asked the said Principal to send the seniority list to him for selection of the senior most teacher for appointment ad hoc Principal. The then Principal submitted a seniority list to the D. I. O. S. in which the appellant was shown senior to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 challenged that list before the D. I. O. S. The D. I. O. S. not having decided the said representation, respondent No. 2 filed a Writ Petition No. 20205 of 1992 before this Court, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 20-5-1992, directing the D. I. O. S. to decide his representation by 25-6-1992. The D. I. O. S. thereafter rejected the representation of respondent No. 2, holding that the appellant is senior to him. Being aggrieved by the said order of the D. I. O. S. the respondent No. 2 filed a Writ Petition No. 26769 of 1992 before this Court, which was allowed by Hon'ble Alok Chakrabarti, J. on 8-8-1995 and the order of the D. I. O. S. , rejecting the representation of the respon dent Not2, was quashed and he was directed to decide the dispute of seniority afresh in the line of the said judgment. The D. I. O. S. thereafter vide his order dated 24-11-1995 remanded the matter to the Committee of Management to decide the question of seniority between the appellant and respon dent No. 2 on the basis of Regulation 3 of Chapter II framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed the Writ Petition No. 34348 of 1995, which has been allowed and the order of the D. I. O. S. dated 24-11-1995 has been quashed and the D. I. O. S. has been directed to decide the dispute in accordance with the judgment dated 8-8-1995 of Hon'ble A. Chakrabarti, J. Feeling ag grieved by the said judgment this appeal has been filed.
(3.) HON'ble A. Chakrabarti, J. while al lowing the Writ Petition No. 26769 of 1992 vide judgment dated 8- 8-1995 has held as follows: (i) seniority list which was finally ap proved by the Committee of Management of the College in 1976 became final and, therefore, it was not open to disturb the same after about fifteen years. In this con nection reliance was placed on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in S. K. Chaudhary v. Committee of Management, 1991 (1) UPLBEC250; ' (ii) the Principal of the College has no power to fix the seniority of the teachers ; and (iii) Regulation 3 of Chapter II framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which has laid down the criteria and norms for fixing the seniority of the teachers, is not applicable to the instant case, because the same was enacted after the seniority has already been fixed and finalised in 1976. In this connection the learned Judge has held as under: "the impugned order apparently does not consider any of the said aspects and the seniority list has been decided on the basis of the age apply ing the provisions of Regulation 3 Chapter II. As in my view the said Regulation 3 does not apply in the case of seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 already decided in June, 1976, the impugned order is apparently illegal and is liable to be struck down. In the circumstances, the writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-7-1992 at Annexure 10 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The D. I. O. S. , Varanasi is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in the line of the present judgment and such decision be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, " (emphasis supplied) The D. I. O. s. however, vide order dated 24-11-1995 held that Regulation 3 of Chapter II framed under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act is applicable to the present case and the seniority of the appel lant and respondent No. 2 is liable to be determined on the basis of the said Regula tion. After holding as above, the D. I. O. S. directed the Committee of Management of the College to determine the seniority of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the aforesaid Regulation. This order of the D. I. O. S. is in flagrant violation of the judgment dated 8-8-1995 of Hon'ble A. Chakrabarti, J. , who has held that Regula tion 3 of Chapter II does not apply in the case of seniority between the appellant and the respondent No. 2. Hon'ble A Chak rabarti, J. recorded the findings and declared the law on three questions men tioned before and thereafter directed the D. I. O. S. to decide the dispute "in the line of the present judgment. " Therefore it was not open to the D. I. O. S. to record a finding contrary to the finding and the declaration recorded by Hon'ble A. Chakrabarti, J. in his judgment. That apart, the D. I. O. S. did not take into consideration the other two findings recorded by Hon'ble A. Chakrabar ti, J. The learned Single Judge was, there fore, justified in condemning the action of the D. I. O. S. , who has passed the order in contravention of the direction and the order of Hon'ble A. Chakrabarti, J. If an order has been passed in disregard of the direction issued by this Court in its earlier judgment, the same has to go. In this connection refer ence may be made to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Satyendra Palv. The Regional Transport Authority, 1982 A. L. J. 310, wherein it was laid down as under: "in fact, there is another principle of law still more puissant and not less irrevocable viz. that he who chooses to defy the order of a Court must face the nemesis, the wages of disobedience is penalty. It follows as a corrollary that if a person is able to secure any advantage by flouting an order of the Court, he must be made to disgorge such gain. Likewise, proceedings taken by an authority in flagrant disregard of the order of a Court are nullity and the Court should have no compunction in putting the hand of the clock back and restoring the status quo ante, where an order of a court is disobeyed, a writ must be issued to redress the injury suffered by a person on account of the disobedience of such order. To borrow the words of Chinappa Reddy, J. in Capt. Dushyantsomalv. Smt. Sushma Somal, (1981) 2 SCC 277: AIR 1981 SC1026 at P. 1029: "where what is complained of is an ipudent disregard of an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries out that a prerogative writ shall issue. It is precisely this principle, which looms large in the present case and all other aspects ultimately con verge to this single point. " For the reasons given above, no exception can be taken to the judgment or the learned single Judge impugned in this ap peal.;