Biranchi Kumar Aich Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary, Law Department and ors.

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 5...........of the petitioner on 4.1.1989 but he was not found fit. it is also mentioned that his integrity and general reputation came under adverse comments in his c.c.r. for the period from 7.5.1987 to 31.12.1987 and from 22.6.1987 to 25.7.1988. however, in december, 1991, he was found suitable and was promoted to the rank of orissa judicial service class-i.4. considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was having spotless service record. a judicial officer has to maintain integrity throughout and to follow judicial discipline. but the adverse entries in his c.c.r. and consideration of his promotion by the standing committee of the high court shows that due to adverse entries in his c.c. rs. he was not found fit for promotion. however, later on when he was found fit for promotion he was duly given promotion to orissa judicial service class-i.5. law is well settled that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. an employee has only a right to be considered for promotion. it appears that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered by the standing committee of the high court on 7.9.1988 and 5.10.1988. on both the occasions, he was found unsuitable for promotion. it may be stated that a new cadre, i.e., orissa judicial service class-i (junior) was created and the case of promotion of the petitioner to the said cadre was also considered by the standing committee of the high court on 4.1.1989 but he was found unfit. therefore, it appears that on repeated occasions, his case for promotion was considered but he was not found suitable for promotion.6. in the above mentioned facts and circumstances, no case for interference by this court has been made out. therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and, as such, the same is dismissed.7. no order as to costs.n.prusty, j.i agree.