Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/1088/2017 on 9 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                          2025:UHC:4716-DB
        Office Notes,
       reports, orders
       or proceedings
Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
       and Registrar's
         order with
         Signatures
                         SPA/1088/2017
                         Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Heard, Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhupendra Singh learned counsel for the respondents through Video Conferencing.

2. As per the office report, there is delay of 05 days in filing the Special Appeal.

3. No objection to delay condonation application is filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application, the delay is condoned.

5. This intra court Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 586 of 2010.

6. By the said judgment, the order passed by the Education Tribunal in favour of respondent no. 2, was upheld.

7. Sardar Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the impugned judgement was passed by learned Single Judge in a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, therefore, in view of the provision contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, this Intra Court Appeal would not be maintainable.

8. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules is excerpted below:

2025:UHC:4716-DB "[5. Special appeal :- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction 66[or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.]"

9. Admittedly, appellant had challenged the judgment rendered by Education Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of provision contained in Rules of the Court, this intra court appeal would not be maintainable.

10. On this short point alone, the Special Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Subhash Upadhyay,J.)(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.06.2025 Kaushal/Anand 2025:UHC:4716-DB