JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record. 2. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make them permanent on the post of Lekhpal and consider for promotion to the higher post treating them validly appointed from the date of initial appointment. 3. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed on various dates in the year 1978 on the post of Lekhpal and are continuing since then. It is also admitted in para 4 of the writ petition that the petitioners are untrained Lekhpal. Pursuant to the Board of Revenue’s letter dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) the District Magistrates were under an obligation to provide appropriate training to such Lekhpals who have completed 10 years of service but are untrained. It also provided that after completion of three months’ training such Lekhpals may also be regularised. It is said that the petitioners have been given such training and thus now they are entitled to be made permanent. It is also contended that there were two other persons similarly placed to the petitioners and they were transferred to Gyanpur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur in reference to Rule 4(1) of U.P. State Government Servants Confirmation Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Rules”) confirmed them vide order dated 13.9.2006 with effect from the date of their initial appointment and has also given the benefit of higher pay scale (stagnation pay scale etc.) pursuant to the Government Order dated 20.12.2000. The attention of this Court was drawn to the above orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur (Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, therefore, are entitled for the same treatment since in view of letter of the Board of Revenue, they have already been given special training and consequently are entitled to be made permanent on the post of Lekhpal from the date of their initial appointment. 5. Having considered the submissions as also the relevant statues, however, I find no force in the submissions. 6. It is not in dispute that recruitment to the post of Lekhpal is governed by Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Rules”). Rule 4 thereof provides for “cadre of service” and it says that the cadre of Lekhpal is districtwise. 6. It is not in dispute that recruitment to the post of Lekhpal is governed by Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Rules”). Rule 4 thereof provides for “cadre of service” and it says that the cadre of Lekhpal is districtwise. Rule 4 is reproduced as under : “4. Cadre.—(i) The strength of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Governor from time to time. (ii) The cadre of Lekhpals shall be district-wise and the district-wise allocation of strength will be made by the State Government. (iii) The Assistant Collector may leave unfilled, or the Governor may hold in abeyance any vacant post without thereby entitling any person to compensation. (iv) The Governor may create any additional, temporary or permanent post from time to time as may be found necessary.” 7. Rule 5 provides for source of recruitment and reads as under : “5. Source of recruitment.—(1) Only such candidates as have obtained the Patwari or Lekhpal School Certificate and whose names have been brought on the list mentioned in Rule 6 shall be eligible for appointment to the service. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), persons who belong to the category mentioned in paragraphs 2 (3) (d) of Revenue (B) Department G.O. No. 4434/B, dated April 27, 1953, and are working in a temporary or officiating capacity, with or without break in service, shall be deemed eligible for appointment to the service. (3) The ex-patwaris who had a good record of service and fulfil other qualification and conditions prescribed for appointment shall also be eligible for appointment to the service. (4) Ex-patwaris shall be treated as new candidates and shall not get the benefit of their past service in any matter. (5) Ex-patwaris who have already been absorbed in the service shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules.” 8. Rule 6 provides for procedure of recruitment and reads as under : “6. (4) Ex-patwaris shall be treated as new candidates and shall not get the benefit of their past service in any matter. (5) Ex-patwaris who have already been absorbed in the service shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules.” 8. Rule 6 provides for procedure of recruitment and reads as under : “6. Procedure for recruitment.—(1) For purposes of recruitment, the Collector shall maintain in the following form a list of candidates who have passed the Patwari or Lekhpal School Examination: Serial No. Name of candidate Date of birth Educational with percentage Qualification and residence 1 2 3 4 Year of passing Total No. of marks Dates of Remarks or Lekhpal obtained in the officiating periods School Examination with with remarks Examination Division about work 5 6 7 8 (2) Necessary material for the maintenance of this list shall be supplied each year, as soon as examination results are out, by the Collector in whose district the Lekhpal School is located. The Collector may, subject to the approval of the Director, add to the list so received the name of any other candidate who has passed the Patwari of Lekhpal School Examination. (3) The names, in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority as determined by the year of examination. Seniority as between the candidates of the same year shall be judged on the basis of he aggregate marks obtained at the examination. Where the aggregate marks are equal, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. (3-A) A district-wise list of ex-patwaris fulfilling the conditions laid down in sub-rule (3) of rule 5 shall be maintained by each Collector. The names in this list shall be arranged according to the length of service. If the length of service of two or more ex-patwaris is the same the names shall be arranged according to age. Note : If any list is already maintained in this behalf under executive orders of Government it shall be deemed to be maintained under this sub-rule. (4) The list referred to the examination and the Collector shall remove the names of - (a) Candidates who have received permanent appointment; (b) Other candidates for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing; (c) Those candidates in the list prescribed in sub-rule (3) of rule 6 who have exceeded the maximum age-limit for appointment.” 9. (4) The list referred to the examination and the Collector shall remove the names of - (a) Candidates who have received permanent appointment; (b) Other candidates for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing; (c) Those candidates in the list prescribed in sub-rule (3) of rule 6 who have exceeded the maximum age-limit for appointment.” 9. Rule 7 confers power upon the Assistant Collector to make appointment on the post of Lekhpal and reads as under : “7. Appointment.—(1) Whenever posts of Lekhpal fall vacant, the Assistant Collector shall appoint thereto alternatively the senior-most candidate on each of the two lists maintained under rule 6. In case no candidate is available in the relevant list, the Assistant Collector may make the appointment from the other list : Provided that the Assistant Collector may pass over any name or named for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided further that any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Assistant Collector under the first proviso may prefect an appeal before the Collector whose decision thereon shall be final. (2) If a candidate does not accept the appointment, when offered, shall be passed over, and the next candidate in order of seniority shall be appointed. The candidate so refusing shall not be considered for appointment in any subsequent vacancy unless he furnishes good and sufficient reasons for his refusal to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector. Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, may prefer an appeal before the Collector, whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) When a district is under settlement or record operations or under operations for consolidation of holding, the Settlement or Record Officer or the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation, as the case may be, make a temporary appointment against a permanent vacancy pending the appointment of a permanent Lekhpal by the Assistant Collector.” 10. The educational qualification provides in Rule 8 and it reads as under : “8. Educational Qualification.—The minimum education qualification shall be Hindustani Middle or Junior High School Examination. The educational qualification provides in Rule 8 and it reads as under : “8. Educational Qualification.—The minimum education qualification shall be Hindustani Middle or Junior High School Examination. Note.—Under Education Department G.O. No. A. 6146/XV-3001(3)-51, dated September 18, 1951, the Parthama, Purva Madyama (with English) and Shastri (With English) Examination conducted by the Government Sanskrit college, Varanasi have been recognised as equivalent, respectively, to the Junior High School (Class VIII) High School, Intermediate and B.A.-Examination for purpose of appointment to posts under the State Government.” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules and particularly Rule 5(1) makes it very clear that no person shall be appointed on the post of Lekhpal under 1958 Rules unless he possesses educational qualification prescribed in Rule 8 and also possess training certificate, i.e., Patwari or Lekhpal School Examination and his name finds mention in the list provided in Rule 6(1) which refers to a list of candidates who have passed the Patwari or Lekhpal School Examination. In fact under the Rules no other selection procedure is prescribed. On the basis of the list of the candidates who have passed Patwari or Lekhpal School Examination, the appointment to the post of Lekhpal is made. It is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the petitioners possess such certificate either at the time of their initial appointment or thereafter or till date. He has also not shown this Court that the aforesaid Rules have been modified or amended at any subsequent point of time dispensing with the above requirement. He, however, refers to the Board of Revenue’s letter dated 29.3.2006 which refers to the Lekhpal Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006 and also for providing special training to such untrained Lekhpals who have worked for 10 years and do not possess any training at all. 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that it does not contemplate that after providing special training, one can be regularised retrospectively from the date of initial appointment and on the contrary para 1 of the Board of Revenue’s letter dated 29.3.2006 makes it clear that the seniority of such Lekhpals who sought to be considered for regularisation after completion of three months’ special training shall commence from the date of regularisation. It is well settled that if the initial appointment was not made in accordance with rules or it was in the teeth of the rules, benefit of such illegal service cannot be claimed by any person. 13. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to 1991 Rules and in particular Rule 4(1) thereof. It may be necessary at this stage, therefore, to consider Rule 4 of 1991 Rules which reads as under : “4. Confirmation where necessary.—(1) Confirmation of a Government servant shall be made only on the post on which he is substantively appointed (i) through direct recruitment or, (ii) by promotion, if direct recruitment is one of the sources of recruitment or, (iii) by promotion if the post belongs to a different Service. (2) Such confirmation shall be made: (i) against a post, whether permanent or temporary, on which any other person does not hold a lien; (ii) subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of confirmation laid down in the relevant service rules, or executive instructions issued by Government, as the case may be; (iii) formal order shall be necessary to be issued by the appointing authority with regard to confirmation. Explanation.—Notwithstanding the fact that a Government servant is confirmed anywhere else, if he is directly recruited on any post, or is promoted to a post, where direct recruitment is one of the sources of recruitment, he will have to be confirmed thereon.” 14. Rule 4 provides for the contingencies in which confirmation is required. It says where an appointment has been made by direct recruitment on substantive basis only in such case confirmation shall be made on the same post. The term substantive appointment has been defined in Rule 3(j) which reads as under: “(j) “Substantive appointment” means an appointment not being any ad-hoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the service made after selection in accordance with the rule and if there were no rules, in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the time being by executive instructions issued by the Government.” 15. From perusal of Rule 4(1) read with definition of “substantive appointment”, it is evident that the appointment of petitioners was not at all in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 1958 Rules, i.e., Rules 5, 6 and 7 and, therefore, their appointment not being a “substantive appointment”. From perusal of Rule 4(1) read with definition of “substantive appointment”, it is evident that the appointment of petitioners was not at all in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 1958 Rules, i.e., Rules 5, 6 and 7 and, therefore, their appointment not being a “substantive appointment”. Hence the question of confirmation or attracting Rule 4 of 1991 Rules does not arise. 16. Learned counsel’s reference to certain orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur in respect to some persons would not help his case for the reason that apparently the aforesaid orders are not in conformity with 1958 Rules or 1991 Rules. However, since neither those persons are party before this Court nor the orders passed in their favour are impugned in this writ petition, therefore, I am constrained to make any further observation in this regard. Suffice it to mention that if an illegality has been committed by the authorities concerned at any point of time that will not give cause of action to another person to claim parity in the matter of such illegality. It is well settled that two wrongs will not make one right. (See State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC 2306 ; Union of India and another v. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983 ; Lalit Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303 ; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 565 ; and Kastha Niwarak G. S. S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 ). 17. Since the petitioners have claimed permanence without their being any appointment in accordance with Rules, the relief sought by the petitioners is wholly impermissible and cannot be granted. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No costs. —————