On a pointed query being made by the Court as to whether the petitioners are in a position to disclose as to in which Halkas he had worked as untrained Lekhpal for a period of 100 days which could entitle them for admission in the Lekhpal Training Institute, counsel for the petitioners refused to answer the query and stated that the petitioners had submitted their application form which was verified by the respondents and therefore it is to be presumed that the petitioners were eligible for admission of Lekhpal training on the relevant date.
This petition is directed against an order dated 13.09.2000. Under the order impugned the Prabhari Adhikari Bhoolekh on behalf of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has required the petitioners to submit such documents as they may be advised for establishing that they had worked as untrained Lekhpal for the required period which could entitle them for admission to the Lekhpal Training Institute and on being successful in the said training to be appointed as Lekhpal.
The order specifically records that unless such information is disclosed by the petitioners, they cannot be appointed as Lekhpal although their result of Lekhpal Training Institute has been declared.
Counsel for the petitioner with all vehemence at his command contended that since petitioners had been admitted to the Training Institute, it is to be presumed that they had completed requisite number of days for being eligible for such admission and further that the petitioners had completed their training at the Lekhpal Training Institute and they were declared successful. Therefore, at this later point of time the respondents are not justified in interfering in the working of the petitioners as Lekhpal or for not offering appointment to the petitioners as Lekhpal even after declaration of their result of Lekhpal Training. Hence this petition.
A detail counter affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition containing as many as 10 documents. It has specifically been stated that admission to Lekhpal Training Institute is regulated by Rule 6 of the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. Under the aforesaid statutory rules the process of admission to Lekhpal Training Institutes, established at five centers in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is on the basis of a competitive examination to be held by the District Magistrate. The selected candidates merit-wise are sent for training to the Lekhpal Training Institute.
The State Government vide Government Order dated 15.01.1986 took a decision to get certain categories of untrained Lekhpal trained i. e. who satisfied two conditions (a) who had been working between 13.09.1976 to 08th June, 1983, and (b) have actually worked for 100 days as untrained Lekhpal.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have examined the records.
Admittedly the petitioners had not appeared in any examination held by the District Magistrate. They claim to be admitted to the Training Institute in terms of the Government Order dated 15.01.1986. From the Government Order dated 15.01.1986 it is apparently clear that not all untrained Lekhpals became entitled to admission to the Lekhpal Training Institute and it is only a particular category of such untrained Lekhpals, who satisfy the aforesaid two conditions, could be admitted under the Government Order. For the purpose the petitioners had made applications claiming that they had worked for 100 days as untrained Lekhpal. It is with reference to the facts so disclosed by the petitioners that they had been admitted to the Training Institute.
The facts disclosed in the application form by the petitioners qua their period of working as untrained Lekhpal was specifically verified by the District Magistrate, Varanasi from the records of his subordinate offices and as per the report dated 16.01.2000 it had been found that the petitioners had actually not worked for 100 days as untrained Lekhpal. It is in this background that the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioners to explain as to why they may not be denied appointment as Lekhpal, as admission to the Lekhpal Training Institute had been obtained on incorrect and false statements made in the application form.
As already noticed above, despite the specific query of the Court calling upon the petitioners to disclose as to whether they had worked as untrained Lekhpal for a period of 100 days and if so, where, the counsel for the petitioners refused to answer the query. Reliance is placed only on the fact that admission to Lekhpal Training Institute had been granted to the petitioners.
This Court has no hesitation to hold that in the facts of the case it was established beyond doubt that the petitioners were not eligible for admission to the Lekhpal Training Institute either under the statutory rules or under the Government Order dated 15.01.1986. The admission to the Lekhpal Training Institute was obtained by the petitioners on incorrect statement of facts. Therefore, any training obtained by the petitioners on such false statement of fact cannot be perpetuated by this Court by issuing a direction to the respondent to offer appointment to the petitioners as Lekhpal on the basis of the training so obtained. This Court, therefore, refuses to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present case.
So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners dated 22.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 19555 of 1992 and in the Special Appeal No. 492 (Defective) of 2005 as well as upon the judgment of Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 4623 of 2008. Suffice is to record that the basic judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge proceeded on the fact that no document or record has been produced and the orders of this Court has not been complied with.
The facts on record of the present writ petition are otherwise. There is voluminous evidence on record by way of counter affidavit, which demonstrate the statement made by the petitioners in the application form, that they actually worked as untrained Lekhpal for 100 days, was false. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) SCC 111, has held that it is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The said judgment has been followed in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. Reported in AIR 2008 SCW 5817.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.2.2011 Pkb/