Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80352-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 354 of 2025 Appellant :- Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma Lecturer In Commerce In K.D.E.M. Inter College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- P.H. Vashishtha,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Krishna Patel,Samarath Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Following orders were passed in the matter on 30.4.2025:- "1. An objection is taken on behalf of respondent/petitioner to the maintainability of the appeal as it arises out of an order passed by the Regional Level Committee, dated 30.11.2024. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Lal vs. DIOS and others reported in 1994 UPLBEC (1) 24. 2. Counsel for the appellant/respondent seeks time to examine the issue. 3. List this case on 08.05.2025, as fresh." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.31 of 2021 (Rajit Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), decided on 8.7.2024, in order to contend that against an appellate order passed by the authorities of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, a special appeal would lie or not. This issue has been considered by the Full Bench in Para 58 in its judgment. The Full Bench has noticed that Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 falls within the preview of Entry 43 and 44 of the Union List. Since bar with regard to maintainability of the special appeal in respect of orders passed by the authorities under the Union List are not attracted, as such, the Full Bench has held the special appeal to be maintainable. 3. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that orders of the Regional Level Committee are in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Chapter-II Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He places reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sita Ram Lal Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and others, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 24, to submit that special appeal in such circumstances would not be maintainable. 4. So far as the placing of reliance upon the Full Bench judgment in Rajit Ram Yadav (supra) is concerned, we find that the issue therein was distinct, inasmuch as the controversy arose out of orders passed by the authorities exercising their jurisdiction under the law referable to Union List. Unlike facts of the case in Rajit Ram Yadav (supra), the order of Regional Level Committee is passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the regulations. In Sita Ram Lal (supra) the Division Bench had held as under in para 10, 11 and 15:- "10. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 4 had described the appeal as representation. A copy of the memo of appeal/representation has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. It describes as an "Appeal against the decision of the Committee of Management." The District Inspector of Schools also treated it against the decision of Committee of Management. The mere fact that the words used are "appeal or representation" will not make much difference. There was no dispute that respondent No. 4 has agitated the matter relating to seniority before the District Inspector of Schools against the decision of Committee of Management. In Shankar Ram Chandra Adhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatre, AIR 1970 SC 1, the Supreme Court considering the scope of appeal or revision observed: "The right of appeal is one of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the court below. Two things which are required to constitute appellate jurisdiction are existence of the relation of superior and inferior court and the power on the part of the former to review the decisions of the latter." 11. The use of words "appeal or representation" however, will not make any difference. The District Inspector of Schools was exercising jurisdiction under Clause (f) of Regulation 3. The appellant never objected before the District Inspector of Schools that he had no jurisdiction to exercise the power to determine seniority of the parties under the said provision. There was no other provision under which he could have exercised the power to adjudicate the dispute regarding the seniority of the teachers of any institution. 15. The seniority of the teachers of an Intermediate College is to be determined in accordance with Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector of Schools, while deciding the dispute regarding seniority of the teachers has to give notice to the parties, look into the pleadings which may be filed by the parties, give an opportunity to produce evidence and after considering respective case of the parties has to determine the dispute by a reasoned order. He has trappings of a Court and this power has been vested under Statute i.e. Clause (f) of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921. Special Appeal is not maintainable against the decision of a tribunal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court." 5. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the case of Sita Ram Lal (supra), we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in matters relating to seniority of teachers, any order passed by the appellate authority under the Regulations would clearly not be amenable to exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. 6. The special appeal, consequently, is not maintainable and is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad