JUDGMENT Honble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. P.N. Ojha in support of this appeal. Mr. Y.K. Srivastava appears for respondents. 2. Mr. Khare seeks to delete appellant No. 2. He is permitted to do so during the course of the day. 3. The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 8th October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The appellant herein is an educational institution, which filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39020 of 2007 with the prayer for mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to issue forms of High School Examination 2007 to it, allow its students to appear in the examination 2007 and to declare the result in time. 5. Mr. Khare submits that after filing of this petition the State Government had issued an order on 27th August, 2007 permitting the students to appear in the High School and Intermediate Board Examination, 2008. In view of this order the petition became infructuous. However, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter on the question how the recognition was granted to various schools. He appointed a committee and under his order dated 8.10.2007 obtained the report of that committee with respect to recognition; name of the institution; number of sanctioned sections; number of sanctioned teachers with their name, designation and addresses; the infrastructure available with the school including building, play ground, library, laboratory; number of sanctioned staff etc. The Court directed the matter to be listed on 6.11.2007 and the report covering at least 50 institutions was to be submitted on or before that date. 6. The principal grounds raised in this appeal are two. One, the petition has become infructuous. This is ground (b) of the memo of appeal. Ground (d) of the appeal is that the learned single Judge retained the matter though the roster had changed and the matter cannot be treated as part-heard or tied up. 7. As far as the first part of the order is concerned, learned Single Judge passed the order in the interest of education system for having good schools with proper facility but at the same time, he has gone beyond the frame of the petition. Any enquiry outside the scope of the petition was not called for. 7. As far as the first part of the order is concerned, learned Single Judge passed the order in the interest of education system for having good schools with proper facility but at the same time, he has gone beyond the frame of the petition. Any enquiry outside the scope of the petition was not called for. The learned Single Judge was not taking any public interest litigation; secondly, it is very clear that when the roster had changed, the matter at pre-admission stage cannot be treated as part-heard or tied up. They cannot be retained with the Judge unless allotted by the Chief Justice. The relevant rules from the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are Rule 14 of Chapter V on tied up cases and Rule 7 of Chapter VI on part-heard cases, which read as follows : "14. Tied up cases.—(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench. (2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it." "7. Part-heard cases.—A case which remains part-heard at the end of the day shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge or Judges concerned, be taken up first after miscellaneous cases, if any, in the Cause List for the day on which such Judge or Judges next sit. Every part-heard case entered in the list may, unless the Bench orders otherwise, be proceeded with whether any Advocate appearing in the case is present or not." 8. As far as the question with respect to pre-admission matters being part heard or tied up matters is concerned, the question is no longer res-integra and is answered in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice and others, 1996 A.W.C. 644. In that matter a writ petition was pending in this Court for admission. The matter was adjourned for about seven dates and an interim order was passed. On the application to vacate the interim order the prayer was rejected by the Division Bench. In that matter a writ petition was pending in this Court for admission. The matter was adjourned for about seven dates and an interim order was passed. On the application to vacate the interim order the prayer was rejected by the Division Bench. On application being moved by the State Government the then Acting Chief Justice withdrew the matter and referred it to the Full Bench. This order of the Acting Chief Justice was challenged by filing another writ petition. It was stated that the writ petition was part heard before the earlier Bench and it was not permissible to the Acting Chief Justice to withdraw the same and refer to Full Bench. The Full Bench in para 36 has laid down law (Per Sagir Ahmed, J., as His Lordship then was in this Court) on above referred Rule 14 as follows : "36. The other part of sub-rule (1) lays down in clear terms that the case in which the Bench has merely issued notice to the opposite party or had passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly-heard by that Bench. This provision has been made to specify that a case does not become part-heard merely by passing of interim order. It also lays down that if notices are directed to be issued to the opposite party, the case does not become part-heard case of that Bench. The consequences are obvious. If the Division Bench which has merely passed an ex parte order or directed notice to be issued to the opposite party locate it as a part heard case or passes an order that it will come up before that Bench for "further hearing" or as a "part-heard" or as a "tied-up" case, the order would be in violation of the Rules of Court and, therefore, a nullity. Such an order would be without jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case unless the case is listed before them again under the orders of the Chief Justice. Such an order would be without jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case unless the case is listed before them again under the orders of the Chief Justice. In a situation where any order has been passed indicating such a case on the order-sheet or on the main writ petition to be part heard or tied up case, the Chief Justice inspite of that order would retain his jurisdiction to list it before the appropriate Bench for hearing as the order limiting the case to be a part-heard or tied up would be in violation of the Rules of Court and would not bind the hands of the Chief Justice from listing that case as a "seen" case before any other Bench rather than as a "tied-up" case before that very Bench." 9. Thus, the Full Bench of this Court has clearly laid down that if a Bench has issued only notice to the opposite party and passed an order that the matter will come up before that Bench for further hearing or as a part-heard or as a tied-up case, the order would be in violation of the Rules of Court and, therefore, a nullity. Such an order would be without jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case, unless the case is listed before that Bench under the orders of the Chief Justice. 10. In paragraphs 34 and 35 the Full Bench went into the question about the matters which are being heard finally and are part-heard. After referring Rule 14 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court the Full Bench held in paragraph 34 that the provision of sub-rule (1) would indicate that even a case which is partly heard by a Division Bench is not necessarily to be laid before that Bench. The use of word "ordinarily" itself indicates that there can be a departure from the normal practice of listing a part-heard case before the same Bench. 11. Identical rules of Rajasthan High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1. A Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court (Per Dr. 11. Identical rules of Rajasthan High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1. A Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court (Per Dr. Anand, J. prior to His Lordship becoming, C.J.I.) affirming the judgment of the Full Bench in paragraph 23, specifically held that "the above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it." Paragraph 23 reads as follows : "23. The above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it. Therefore, from a review of the statutory provisions and the case on the subject as rightly decided by various High Courts, to which reference has been made by us, it follows that no Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. If every Judge of a High Court starts picking and choosing cases for disposal by him, the discipline in the High Court would be the casualty and the administration of justice would suffer. No legal system can permit machinery of the Court to collapse. The Chief Justice has the authority and the jurisdiction to refer even a part-heard case to a Division Bench for its disposal in accordance with law where the Rules so demand. It is complete fallacy to assume that a part-heard case can under no circumstances be withdrawn from the Bench and referred to a larger Bench, even where the Rules make it essential for such a case to be heard by a larger Bench." 12. In this paragraph the Apex Court has clearly held that no Judge or Bench can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. 13. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. 13. Recently, in another judgment the Apex Court has held in para 19 of Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 that it is not within the competence of any Single or Division Bench of the High Court to give any direction to the Registry in that behalf which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. The judgment (Per Balakrishnan, J. prior to His Lordship becoming C.J.I.) specifically referred to the earlier judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chandra (supra) and reiterated the legal position. 14. The law laid down in these judgments clearly establishes that the learned Single Judge could not have directed the Registry to continue the matter to be placed before him as the roster had been changed. Even if he was to say that the matter was part heard, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench which is affirmed by the Apex Court : such a direction or order would be in violation of the Rules of Court and, therefore, nullity. Any case at pre admission stage cannot be treated as part heard or tied up and such a direction contrary to the roster is not within the competence of any Single or Division Bench of the High Court as has also been held in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra). 15. In view of above the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The appeal stands allowed. 16. Mr. Khare wants to withdraw the original petition. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 17. Mr. Srivastava states that some good has come up in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It will be open to the Government to constitute its own committee and continue with the inquiry but it will not take protection of the order passed by the Court. We presume that the Government is serious in discharging its responsibility of having good education system and good schools with proper facility. ————