JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. We are of the view that this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is not maintainable since the order, which has been impugned in the appeal, is not a judgment as by the said order the Hon’ble Single Judge has simply granted an interim order after being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for granting the interim relief. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant however sought to argue that his caveat was there and, therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar v. Deputy Director of Education, I Region Meerut and others, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 313, the appeal is maintainable. However, we do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the appeal lies only against a judgment and not otherwise. In Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar v. Deputy Director of Education (supra), the Court found the appeal maintainable for the reason that besides suspending the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition, the single Judge gave a further positive direction to appoint authorized Controller and this being one of the principle relief in the writ petition, the special appeal was held maintainable as is apparent from para-4 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under : “4. We also do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that the appeal is not maintainable against the interim order. But we have to bear in mind that while suspending the operation of the order the learned Single Judge gave a positive direction to appoint authorized controller. Therefore, this appeal is maintainable.” 4. In the case in hand, however, the Hon’ble Single Judge has only stayed the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition but there is no further direction to do or not to do something which can be termed to be granting one of the principle relief sought in the writ petition. Therefore, this appeal is maintainable.” 4. In the case in hand, however, the Hon’ble Single Judge has only stayed the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition but there is no further direction to do or not to do something which can be termed to be granting one of the principle relief sought in the writ petition. On the contrary, a similar matter came up for consideration in Society Madarsa Mazahir Uloom Mubarak Shah, Saharanpur v. Muzaffar Hussain, 1994(1) UPLBEC 277 in which this Court held that mere grant of stay order or vacation of an interim order in a pending writ petition by itself does not decide any controversy on which the parties are at issue and where by the interim order only the operation of the impugned order is stayed and there is no further direction or adjudication of the rights of the parties, a special appeal would not lie. The order impugned in this appeal is within the four corner of the law laid down by this Court in Society Madarsa Mazahir Uloom Mubarak Shah (supra). 5. We are, therefore, of the view that this special appeal is not maintainable. The appropriate remedy available to the appellant is either to move an application before the Hon’ble Single Judge for recall of the order or to file a stay vacation application alongwith the counter-affidavit. The special appeal however does not lie. 6. In the result, this special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. ————