- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3-appellant aggrieved by order dated 31.8.1995 passed by learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24125 of 1995 has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) THE short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that inter-se seniority between the writ petitioner and respondent No. 3 (appellant herein) was adjudicated by the Committee of Management of Sri Kisan Vidyapith Inter College, Dalippur Barauna Kalan, Etawah. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 4 herein) assailed the aforesaid decision before the District Inspector of Schools under Regulation 3(i)(f) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 6.1.1992 dismissed the appeal. The respondent No. 4 challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1992. During the pendency of the writ petition, the power to decide an appeal in a dispute of seniority has been conferred on the Regional Deputy Director of Education instead of District Inspector of Schools by Government Order dated 28.7.1992. It seems that thereafter respondent No. 4 filed representation before the Deputy Director. Later on, he filed the writ petition inter alia seeking direction for disposal of the representation. By the impugned order, said prayer of respondent No. 4 has been accepted. It is worth mentioning here that after the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 withdrew the earlier writ petition No. 1120 of 1992 which was filed challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools. Mr. Krishan Ji Khare, appearing on behalf of appellant, submits that as the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was decided by the District Inspector of Schools, who was the then competent authority to decide the same, then conferment of the said power subsequently on the Deputy Director, shall not entitle the respondent No. 4 to file another appeal or representation. He submits that the learned single Judge, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, had passed the order directing for disposal of the representation filed later on. Despite the service of notice on respondent No. 4, nobody has chosen to appear on his behalf.
(3.) WE find substance in the submission of Mr. Khare. Once the appellate power was exercised by the District Inspector of Schools, then the remedy stood exhausted. The said power having been conferred on a different authority i.e. Deputy Director, later on, shall not entitle the respondent No. 4 to file a fresh appeal or representation.;