JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.N. Ojha appearing for the appellant, Mr. Girish Chandra Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State appearing for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. R.P. Dubey appearing for respondent No. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar appears for respondent No. 5. All respondents are served. 2. The appeal was admitted by an order passed by a Division Bench, in which one of us (Hon. H.L. Gokhale, C.J.) was a party, on 1.11.2007. With the consent of the Counsel appearing for the respondents the appeal is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of. 3. This appeal arises out of writ petition No. 9456 of 2007 filed by the respondent No. 5 herein, one Puran Lal Sonkar, father of one Km. Sunaina Devi. The prayer in the petition was to direct the State of U.P. and the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to consider the request of the petitioner for providing examination centre at Mahatma Joti Rao Phule Vidya Ashram Higher Secondary School, Karadham, district Kaushambi, where the daughter of respondent No. 4 was studying. The petition was filed on 19th February, 2007 and the examination was to be held in March, 2007. Inasmuch as the time to consider such a prayer was inadequate, the centre could not be allotted at that school. Meanwhile, the daughter of respondent No. 4 appeared for the High School examination, from where she was allotted the centre and passed the examination. The mark-sheet is at Annexure-14 to this appeal. Mr. Sanjay Kumar appearing for respondent No. 5 accepts this position. Now, what has happened is that the learned Single Judge, who was seized of the petition continued to retain and proceed with the matter which in fact thus had become clearly infructuous. He went on passing different orders. These orders are dated (i) 12.3.2007, (ii) 23.3.2007, (iii) 6.4.2007, (iv) 4.5.2007, (v) 2.7.2007, (vi) 9.8.2007, (vii) 17.9.2007, (viii) 12.10.2007 and one more order directing a C.B.I. enquiry. 4. The first order dated 12.3.2007 records that certain black listed examination centres initially withdrawn were subsequently re-allotted and that required enquiry. The second order dated 23.3.2007 records that a preliminary enquiry had been done by the Chief Secretary into such 34 centres in that district detecting irregularities. 4. The first order dated 12.3.2007 records that certain black listed examination centres initially withdrawn were subsequently re-allotted and that required enquiry. The second order dated 23.3.2007 records that a preliminary enquiry had been done by the Chief Secretary into such 34 centres in that district detecting irregularities. The order thereafter directed that action be taken against the Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and the Director of Education for their inaction within ten days on the basis of the report dated 22.3.2007 referred in that order. By the next order dated 6.4.2007 the learned Single Judge ordered for an enquiry by C.B.I. This order was challenged by filing a Special Appeal and that order was stayed. Subsequently, on 4.5.2007 the learned Single Judge directed the Chief Secretary to file his personal affidavit with respect to the steps being taken. This was followed by one more order dated 2.7.2007, which directs for issuance of charge-sheet. Meanwhile, new Chief Secretary had taken charge. He was directed to serve charge-sheet upon the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi within 15 days. The order passed thereafter is dated 9.8.2007. It records that an I.A.S. Officer has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer for the enquiry contemplated by the learned Single Judge. On 17.9.2007 the learned Single Judge recorded that the progress made by the Government was too slow and the report of the Enquiry Officer be produced in original on subsequent date. It also directed that the Principal Secretary as well as the Enquiry Officer, an I.A.S. officer will remain present in the Court. Lastly, on 12.10.2007 the matter was adjourned to 2.11.2007 and it was at this stage that the appeal was filed. 5. This appeal has been filed by the Director of Education (Secondary) challenging these eight orders passed on 12.3.2007, 23.3.2007, 6.4.2007, 4.5.2007, 2.7.2007, 9.8.2007, 17.9.2007 and 12.10.2007. As far as the order dated 6.4.2007 is concerned, which directs for C.B.I, enquiry, the State filed an appeal and stay has been granted in that appeal. The appellant seeks to challenge that order also. 6. The appellant had applied for joining in the petition as respondent by moving an impleadment application. No orders have been passed on that application and the application remains pending. It is for this reason that leave to appeal was sought to file the appeal and that was granted on the last date. 7. 6. The appellant had applied for joining in the petition as respondent by moving an impleadment application. No orders have been passed on that application and the application remains pending. It is for this reason that leave to appeal was sought to file the appeal and that was granted on the last date. 7. Two principal grounds of challenge have been raised in this appeal. The first is that when the daughter of respondent No. 4 had appeared at the examination and passed it, the petition was worked out. The petitioner had sought centre at the school where his daughter was studying for her convenience. She appeared at the centre which was allotted to her. Therefore nothing remained to be done further. Grounds No. 5 and 6 of the appeal are that since the examination in question had already commenced and the results were declared nothing survived in the petition and the petition ought to have been disposed of. In ground No. 7 it is specifically averred that the learned Single Judge ought to have confined himself to the pleadings and the prayers of the writ petition and each of the direction/observation of the learned Single Judge are totally beyond the scope of the petition. 8. The Counsel for original petitioner, who is joined as respondent No. 5, does not dispute these submissions of the appellant, nor any other Counsel appearing for other respondents. In this behalf one must note that when a litigant files a petition in the Court, the litigant approaches the Court for the particular relief, which he seeks in the petition. The learned Judge is expected to decide the prayer in the petition in the light of the averments made in the petition and the grounds taken therein after looking into the counter affidavit, which may be filed by the respondents and the rejoinder affidavit that may be filed by the petitioner himself. The manner in which the learned Single Judge has gone into other aspects of the matter in the present case is not permissible in an adversary litigation. The learned Single Judge has gone into the question as to why the 34 examination centres cancelled at one point of time from being examination centre were revived and why action was not taken against those responsible in this behalf. He has further gone to the extent of directing a C.B.I. enquiry. The learned Single Judge has gone into the question as to why the 34 examination centres cancelled at one point of time from being examination centre were revived and why action was not taken against those responsible in this behalf. He has further gone to the extent of directing a C.B.I. enquiry. None of these questions were raised in the petition and the Counsel for respondent No. 5 has accepted that his petition had already been worked out. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge appear to have been passed in the interest of purity of examinations. However, these orders are in the nature of orders which are passed on a public interest litigation and that was not the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. The consequence has been that the learned Single Judge has gone on passing orders after orders and the petition that ought to have been disposed of in April/May, 2007 remained pending. The judicial time that would have been better utilised was spent on a petition that had already been worked out. There is enough substance in this ground of appeal as pointed out above. 9. The other ground raised in this appeal which is to be looked into is ground No. 14. In this ground it is stated that the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge at a point of time when he was seized of the jurisdiction with regard to education matters in the month of February/March, 2007. Thereafter what is stated in this ground is reproduced below : “However, subsequent thereto there has been change of jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge on more than one occasion and His Lordship is no longer seized with jurisdiction pertaining to education matters. However, despite such cessation of jurisdiction the writ petition to be listed before the learned Single Judge treating the same to be part heard/tied up with the learned Single Judge.” 10. Mr. Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that these orders were passed by the learned Single Judge when he had no jurisdiction to pass such orders. We have looked into the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Firstly, in none of the orders it has been stated that the matter may be treated as tied up or part heard. We have looked into the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Firstly, in none of the orders it has been stated that the matter may be treated as tied up or part heard. He has all throughout stated that the matter may be listed or put up on a subsequent date for further orders. Even if he was to treat the matter as part heard or tied-up at the pre-admission stage, it is not permissible under the Rules of the Court. 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.” 11. 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 dales 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. 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.” (Italicised supplied) 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Identical rules of Rajasthan High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1. A Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court (Per Dr. 14. Identical rules of Rajasthan High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand reported in (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.” 15. 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. 16. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. 16. 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. 17. 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). 18. In these circumstances, we accept both the submissions of the appellant, namely, the petition had become infructuous once the daughter of the original petitioner had appeared at the examination from the centre that was allotted to her and secondly, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge after change of roster were without jurisdiction and are liable to be treated as null and void. 19. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders dated 12.3.2007, 23.3.2007, 6.4.2007, 4.5.2007, 2.7.2007, 9.8.2007, 17.9.2007 and 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge and the petition is also disposed of as worked out. The registry will make necessary entry. 20. In the circumstances of the case, obviously there will not be any order as to costs. ————