Dipak Misra, J. - (1.)THE question that has cropped up in this appeal whether the appeal preferred under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity the 'Act') should be entertained against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2.4.2007 in W.P.S No. 4306/2007. To appreciate the factual scenario and the law that emerges for consideration, it is seemly to reproduce the order passed by the learned Single Judge as under: Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on admission. Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within a week. The notice shall be made returnable within six Weeks. No ground for interim relief is made out. The prayer for interim relief is rejected.
(2.)IT is contended by Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the aforesaid order is appealable as it has vital impact on the litigation and eventually affects the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the Appellant. It is urged by him that by refusing to pass an interim order, the learned Single Judge has really foreclosed the rights of the Appellant as a result of which he would face immense inconvenience and remaining state of constant misery. Submission of Mr. Rajneesh Gupta is that the Appellant/Petitioner, an Assistant Account Officer was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh after bifurcation of the original State of Madhya Pradesh into two States, namely, State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh as per the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 which came into effect on 1.11.2002 and if no protective order is passed his agony would be multiplied.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant further contended that seniority of the Appellant was erroneously determined as a result of which he was compelled to assail the same before this Court and eventually the employer determined his seniority but did not communicate to the Central Government, as a consequence of which, he had to face his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh as per order dated 14.2.2007. It is further urged by him that the Appellant is under suspension as a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. The learned Single Judge would have been well -advised to pass an interim order so that the Appellant could have been retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh even in the present situation.
To appreciate whether the aforesaid order would be an order for the purpose of assail in appeal, it is appropriate to refer to Section 2 of the Act. The said provision reads as under:

2 (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two judges of the same High Court:

Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2) An appeal under Sub -section (1) shall be filed within 45 days from the date of order passed by a single Judge.

Provided that any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period of 45 days, if the Petitioner satisfies the Division Bench that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

Explanation - The fact that the Petitioner was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause with the meaning of this Sub -section.

On a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is quite clear that as per the proviso envisaged no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order. Though such a prohibition is there, certain interlocutory orders have different status and under certain circumstances an appeal can lie.