2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner that the special appeal is not maintainable as per the provisions contained under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of the Court, 1952)1 inasmuch as the writ petition had been filed seeking to challenge the order of termination against the petitioner as also the orders passed in appeal and revision under the statutory rules. 3. The provision with regard to filing of an intra-court appeal under the Rules of the Court, 1952, is contained under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the aforementioned Rules, and the same is as follows :- 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 or in the exercise of 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." 4. The language under Rule 5, referred to above, is couched in a manner whereunder an intra-court appeal would not lie in certain specified cases. The Rule provides for certain specified exclusions whereunder a special appeal would not lie from a judgment of one judge of this Court. The exclusions under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 were considered in the case of Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors.2 , and it was held as under :- 64. From the above discussions and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, special appeal is excluded from a judgment of one Judge of this Court in following categories :- (i) Judgment of one Judge 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. (ii) Judgment of one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. (iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of Superintendence. (iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. (v) Judgment of order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be more 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 State List or Concurrent List. (vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act." 5. The issue of maintainability of a special appeal under the aforementioned Rule again came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others3, and it was stated thus:- 15. Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances: 1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court; 2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction; 3 the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court; 4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction; 5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by (i) the tribunal, (ii) Court or (iii) 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 of India; 6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of (i) the Government or (ii) any officer or (iii) authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. 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 of India. " 6. The various exclusions provided for under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII whereunder an intra-court appeal would not lie would therefore include a case where an appeal is sought to be preferred against an order made by one judge in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award 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 Uttar Pradesh Act or 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 of India. 7. The question of maintainability of a special appeal under the Rules of the Court, 1952, in the context of a judgment rendered by a Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution in respect of judgment, order or award of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made in exerecise of jurisdiction under Uttar Pradesh or Central Act with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List earlier came up for consideration in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kanpur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.4, and it was stated as follows:- 4. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, on the interpretation of which depends the decision on the point, reads as follows: 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 or in the exercise of 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.