1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1999
  6. /
  7. January

Santosh Kumar Tripathi vs Chief Engineer (Adhisthan ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 October, 1999


1. One R. C. Sharma/ R. C. Tripathi was employed as tubewell operator in Sub-Division I, Varanasi. He died on 1st May, 1992.
Petitioner (major son of said Sri Tripathi) and who had passed Intermediate U. P. Board Examination in 1985 submitted application for being appointed on compassionate ground under relevant Dying-in-Harness Rules. 1974, true copy of the said application dated 26th July, 1992 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Another application dated 17th March. 1993 was filed as Annexure-3 to the petition.
2. Skipping over unnecessary details, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was selected and required to undergo requisite training under relevant service rules vide order dated 13th September, 1995 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). In the said letter, it was clearly mentioned that petitioner will have to undergo six months' training and on his successful completion, he will have to clear the test adjudged him suitable for working as Seench Parvekshak.
3. Petitioner joined training without objection or protest in pursuance to the said letter. Petitioner was required to produce relevant certificate for verification of above facts (See paragraphs 15. 16 and 17 to the writ petition) bul he failed to do so. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to note that petitioner is guilty of concealing correct facts and guilty of making false averments in para 17 of the writ petition.
4. Petitioner has made serious allegations of demanding bribe against his immediate superior [Chhatra Pal Sharma), with whom he was attached and required to take training (para 18 of the writ petition). Petitioner has not impleaded Chhalra Pal Sharma by name as a party and, therefore, personal allegations against the said officer are of no avail and are to be ignored.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition. Paragraphs 12 to 17 of the counter-affidavit are relevant. In brief, the case of the respondents is that petitioner did not complete the training in spile of opportunity being afforded, he is careless and not serious to his duties. He abused his superior officer, he failed to substantiate his allegation of bribe against Chhatra Pal Sharma and lastly failed to avail the opportunity of completing his training under another Officer Sri Dharam Pal Singh Zitedar.
6. In aforesaid paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, various details relating to the correspondence in writing between concerned officer and the petitioner has been disclosed. The said correspondence or receipt of the letters addressed to the petitioner, has not been categorically derived by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit.
7. In all fairness, petitioner ought to have disclosed the facts which he has attempted to explain and justify by filing rejoinder-affidavit at a stage when the same have been brought by the respondent through their counter-affidavit. There is no explanation in the rejoinder-affidavit, as to why petitioner did not complete his training under Sri Dharam Pal Singh Ziledar. The said fact was even concealed in the petition.
8. Petitioner succeeded in obtaining an ex parte interim order dated 8lh March, 1996 by misrepresentation and non-disclosure of relevant and material facts. Relevant extract of the interim order reads :
".....If the petitioner has already completed six months' training which he was required to undergo vide letter annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the Executive Engineer Madhya Ganga Nahar Nlrman Khand 12 Aligarh shall issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner forthwith upon the production of the certified copy of this order and pay current salary to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he resumes his duty pursuant to the appointment order to be issued in the light of this order or show cause by filing counter-affidavit within six weeks."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner could not be asked to pass test after completing training period Inasmuch as general service rules could not be applied in the case of petitioner who was entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner. provisions of general service rules were not attracted in the case of petitioner inasmuch as according to him, if petitioner is required to undergo training and then pass test, it will be denying opportunity of appointment on compassionate ground as contemplated under Dying in Harness Rules. 1974.
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted on two grounds in the facts of the present case.
11. Petitioner accepted appointment (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) vide letter dated 13th September. 1995. Petitioner, on his selection as Seench Parvekshak, was to be appointed on completion of six months training and on being declared successful In the test after completion of the training. The said letter in unequivocal terms provide for aforesaid conditions. Petitioner accepted the same and joined training on the basis of said letter being fully aware of the aforesaid conditions. He made no protest nor submitted objection with respect to the imposition of aforesaid conditions.
Petitioner having proceeded to join training on the basis of said letter dated 13th September. 1995 cannot be permitted to challenge the aforesaid conditions at a belated stage as an afterthought. Petitioner, who accepted condition of training cannot be permitted to turn around.
change his stand and challenge the validity of this very letter dated 13th September. 1995 at subsequent stage.
12. In the instant case, petitioner was expected to deal with Tubewells run on high voltage of electric power. State Tubewell machines are very costly. If they are burnt, by allowing an untrained man to operate, besides causing damage to Government property, acquired from public funds, it wilt cause damage in absence of irrigation to the crop of cultivators who have their fields within the command of said Tubewell. And no wonder, an untrained operator may himself endanger his life. It is now established principle of law--as declared by Supreme Court, that plea of 'Estoppel' is not available against 'Public Interest' See (1999) 3 SCC 172 and (1999) 4 SCC 357.
13. There is another reason for not allowing the relief claimed In the present petition.
14. Petitioner is guilty for not approaching this Court with clean hands. As already Indicated above, he concealed relevant facts and is clearly guilty of misrepresentation when he filed the writ petition. He could not get the interim order If he had disclosed full facts.
15. Petitioner disentitled himself from claiming discretionary extraordinary relief under Article 226. Constitution of India ; as held by this Court in :
1. AIR 1951 All 746 (FB).
2. 1951 ALJ 1210.
3. 1996 (3) SCC 332.
4. 1999 AWC 100 (SC).
16. In the view of the above. I find the writ petition is devoid of merit as well as it is not a fit case for Interference under Article 226, Constitution of India.
17. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Santosh Kumar Tripathi vs Chief Engineer (Adhisthan ...


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

27 October, 1999
  • A Yog