AR.LAKSHMANAN, C.J - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of rejection in the stay application filed by the appellant herein in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers :- " (i) declare the action of the respondents in not providing reservation to the disabled persons while making selections for PG Courses, as bad in law; (ii) further by writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to implement the Act of 1955 and the recommendations given by the Commissioner Disabilities and provide at least 3% reservations to the physically handicapped persons in the Pre PG Entrance Examination 2000 for admission to MD/MS Diploma Courses; (iii) the respondents be further directed to seek option from the petitioner for PG seats for the various faculties and grant him admission as per his merit vis-a-vis other physically handicapped persons; (iv) direct the respondents to prepare a separate merit for physically handicapped persons in the Pre PG Entrance Examination, 2000; (v) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of humble petitioner; (vi) Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner".
(2.) Along with the writ petition, the appellant filed a stay application requesting this Court to direct the respondents to keep at least one post in the PG Course vacant for physically handicapped persons or in the alternative direct the respondents to keep 3% of seats in the Pre PG Course reserved for physically handicapped persons and also further direct the respondents to provisionally prepare a separate merit list for physically handicapped persons, who have applied for the Pre PG Entrance Test, 2000. The said application was rejected by Justice A. K. Parihar against which the present Special Appeal was filed. A Division Bench of this Court on 19-4-2000 issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why this appeal should not be admitted and disposed of at this stage. Notice was ordered returnable by six weeks. The Division Bench on the same day issued a direction in stay application No. 1767/2000 in the following terms :- "19-4-2000 Hon. V. S. Kokje, Actg. C. J. Hon. P. P. Naolekar, J. Mr. S. P. Sharma, for applicant Issue Notice, returnable by six weeks. Meanwhile one seat be kept vacant in the Pre-PG Course 2000 so that in case the applicant succeeds he shall have a chance to compete under the quota of physically handicapped persons. Sd/ Sd/"
(3.) We heard Mr. S. P. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Narendra Jain learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ appeal. According to the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3, both the stay applications are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the main special appeal itself is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as it is directed against an interlocutory order dated 7-4-2000 passed by the learned single Judge. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that the State has already filed a detailed reply to the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition itself may be directed to be disposed of at an early date. In support of his contention learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 invited our attention to Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which reads thus :- "18. Appeal to the High Court from judgment of Judges of the Court :- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under Section 43 or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court. (2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an apeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the High Court made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal.";