Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2406 (ALL)

LAKHMI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-10-17

RAJES KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal on 27.4.1974. He became permanent on 24.7.1976. He is posted as a Lekhpal in Tehsil Syana, District Bulandshahr. 2. It appears that vide letter dated 7th July, 2010, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bulandshahr invited applications from the Lekhpals, who have completed their six years of service, for the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. It has been directed to give information by 12.7.2010. The petitioner was at serial No. 1 in the seniority list of the Lekhpals. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter of the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), the petitioner also applied for the promotion, vide application dated 14.7.2010. The name of the petitioner was sent alongwith the relevant information by the Tehsildar, Syana, on 23.7.2010 by which it has also been informed that the promotion is to be made by the District Magistrate after interview to be held on 24.7.2010. The petitioner has been directed to appear on 14.7.2010 at 10:00 a.m. in the office of the Assistant Land Revenue Officer alongwith the certificate of the educational qualification and other records. When the petitioner came to know that by the order dated 24.7.2010, juniors to the petitioner have been promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago, he filed Writ Petition No. 66640 of 2010, claiming his promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago and for quashing the order dated 24.7.2010 by which juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and the petitioner has been ignored. This Court has entertained the writ petition and directed the respondents to file the counter-affidavit. The counter and the rejoinder-affidavits have been filed in the said writ petition. 3. Meanwhile, on 11th February, 2011, a Government Order has been passed in pursuance to that, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr has passed an order on 19th February, 2011 whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Syana, Bulandshahr has been directed to relieve the petitioner for the training of Revenue Inspector. Thereafter on 20th February, 2011, the petitioner made a representation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, requesting therein that since only two years’ service remained and deteriorating health of the petitioner as well has his wife, he is not able to go outside the District, therefore, he may be exempted from the training of the Revenue Inspector. Thereafter on 20th February, 2011, the petitioner made a representation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, requesting therein that since only two years’ service remained and deteriorating health of the petitioner as well has his wife, he is not able to go outside the District, therefore, he may be exempted from the training of the Revenue Inspector. On consideration of the representation, the petitioner was not relieved, but again on 24.5.2011, an order has been passed by the Tehsildar, Syana whereby the petitioner was relieved for training. The petitioner has sought leave and further made a representation before the District Magistrate that he has sought promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago for which the writ petition is pending and in case if he will be asked to go for training of Revenue Inspector, the writ petition will become infructuous. Challenging the order dated 24.5.2010 by which the petitioner has been relieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34042 of 2011, which has been disposed of vide order dated 9.6.2011 whereby this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation before the Collector and the Collector has been asked to dispose of the same within six weeks. The petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 22.6.2011 on which the District Magistrate has sought a report from the Tehsildar, Syana and thereafter by the order dated 3.8.2011 rejected the representation of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Board of Revenue vide order dated 4.6.2010 promoted the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago cannot be considered once the petitioner has already been promoted. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was at serial No. 1 of the list of selected candidates and the petitioner appeared in the interview for the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. The order of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr is being challenged in Writ Petition No. 46605 of 2011. 4. Heard Sri S.M. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the posts of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago and the Revenue Inspector are equivalent posts and are the promotional posts. The order of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr is being challenged in Writ Petition No. 46605 of 2011. 4. Heard Sri S.M. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the posts of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago and the Revenue Inspector are equivalent posts and are the promotional posts. However, the post of Revenue Inspector is related with the field work whereas the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago is the post for the office work and since the petitioner was not keeping well and his health is not suitable to work in the filed, the petitioner is more suitable and is entitled for the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. He submitted that the petitioner claimed his promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago and he is not aware about the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4.6.2010 and has never been informed about the said order inasmuch as the petitioner has been asked to apply for the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago for which he applied and also called upon for the interview in which he appeared and in the select list, he has been placed at serial No. 1, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue vide order dated 4.6.2010 has already promoted the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector and, therefore, till the said order exists, the petitioner cannot be promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Under the Subordinate Revenue Executive (Bhulekh Nirikshak) Service Rules, 1977, the Board of Revenue is the authority, which selects/promotes the Lekhpals on the post of Revenue Inspector. The procedure for the promotion is contemplated under Rule 17, which provides that (a) the Board, every year, shall provide the number of candidates to be selected by 1st of March to the Commissioner, (b) the Collector, first of all, collect the names of the candidates and the provide the same to the Commissioner, in a proforma prescribed, by 1st of June and (c) the Commissioner has to send the report to the Board by 1st of July. In the U.P. Inferior Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanunago and Assistant Registrar, Kanunago) Service Rules, 1958, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. In the U.P. Inferior Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanunago and Assistant Registrar, Kanunago) Service Rules, 1958, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Under Rule 7 of the said Rules, those Lekhpals who have served for more than six years, by promotion, may be appointed as the Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the petitioner has been appointed as the Revenue Inspector, under the aforesaid Rules, by the Board of Revenue on 4.6.2010, he ceased to be the Lekhpal and, therefore, he could not be considered for the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the impugned orders. 8. It is is not in dispute that by the order dated 4.6.2010, the petitioner has been selected/promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector by the Board. The said order has not been challenged and has become final. Even though, neither in the writ petition nor in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that for the post of Revenue Inspector, the Collector has sought the name from the petitioner, but Rule 17, which provides for promotion on the post of Revenue Inspector, contemplates that the name of the candidates would be selected by the Collector, therefore, it appears that the Collector must have recommended the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has been promoted/appointed as the Revenue Inspector by the Board by the order dated 4.6.2010 and when the Lekhpals have been asked to give their names for promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago, the petitioner applied for the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago, but has not been considered as he has already been selected and promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector and ceased to be a Lekhpal on the date of the consideration for promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Since the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4.6.2010 is not being challenged in none of the writ petitions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ——————