(Per : Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 September 2015. Between 1978 and 1981, the respondents were initially appointed as untrained Lekhpals for different periods in various Tehsils of District Ballia for a limited duration. The Board of Revenue issued a circular on 15 January 1986 to impart training to those untrained Lekhpals who had worked on an ad-hoc basis during a specific period. On 3 October 1988, the Board of Revenue issued a circular directing the Collectors to send them on training after verifying the period of service. Upon representations submitted by the respondents to the effect that their names should be forwarded to the Lekhpal Training School after verification, the Secretary of the Board of Revenue addressed communications to the Collector, Ballia for verification of the service of the respondents. According to the respondents, the Collector, Ballia addressed communications to the Board of Revenue verifying the period of service and of educational qualifications of the respondents. In pursuance thereof, the respondents joined the training programme. They completed the training by clearing the written examination and interview. Results were declared on 10 July 1991 by which the respondents were found to be successful.
On 31 July 1991, an ex parte report was submitted by the Chief Revenue Officer, Ballia finding that the respondents had not worked as untrained Lekhpals. In consequence, the result was cancelled by the Board of Revenue on 19 August 1991. A writ petition1 was filed before this Court by the respondents. By a judgment and order dated 16 September 1992, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the order of cancellation had been issued without affording to the candidates an opportunity of being heard. The order dated 19 August 1991 cancelling the result was set aside. According to the respondents, appointment letters were thereafter issued to them on or about 24 October 1992.
On 30 August 1994, a notice to show cause was issued followed by another notice dated 22 November 1994 under Rule 214 of the Land Record Manual. Once again the result of the Lekhpal Training Course was cancelled on 29 August 1995. An interim order was passed by this Court on 8 January 1996 in a writ petition2. According to the respondents, all untrained Lekhpals who had completed ten years continuous service were subjected to a three months special training and a list was prepared which included their names on 29 March 2006. The case of the respondents was that during the pendency of the writ petition, their services were confirmed and they were also granted promotional pay scales. The writ petition was eventually disposed of on 10 April 2013 by directing that fresh opportunity of being heard be given to the respondents and with a direction that the order which is impugned would abide by the result of the decision to be taken by the Board of Revenue. Eventually, a fresh order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 11 July 2013, placing reliance on a report of the Collector dated 31 July 1991 and a fresh verification dated 10 April 2013. The respondents were held to be ineligible to be appointed on the post of Lekhpals and directions were issued for taking necessary steps thereupon in accordance with law.
This gave rise to the filing of the writ petition which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 September 2015. In the meantime, the District Magistrate had called upon the SDM to pass consequential orders. It appears that the appointments were cancelled.
The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had adverted to proceedings which had taken place before this Court both before a learned Single Judge and in special appeal before the Division Bench and which ultimately went up to the Supreme Court where the judgment rendered by this Court was confirmed.
To appreciate the factual background, it would be material to note that the same examination of 1989 to which the present petition pertains where the result of the Lekhpal Training Course had been cancelled by the Board of Revenue was the subject matter of another writ petition3. At this stage, it would be material to note that the learned Single Judge in the judgment noted that about 160 candidates of the 1989 examination were involved in the dispute. Finding that the order cancelling the result had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, a specific direction was issued in the following terms:
"In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to grant marks to the petitioners as provided in sub clause 5 of Rules 223 of the Land record Manual and in case their total marks are beyond the last person who was select for grant of trained scale the petitioners shall also be granted, trained scale from the (date) any person junior to him was granted."
The petition was allowed in the aforesaid terms and the order of cancellation was set aside. A recall application was dismissed on 5 October 2007. There was another writ petition4 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge in the following terms:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the present case is would be appropriate that a direction to this effect be issued to the respondents to declare result of the examination of 1989 regarding the Lekhpals in which the petitioners had appeared. It is also made cleared that if the petitioners are declared successful in the Lekhpal Examination of 1989 then appropriate orders regarding their posting be also passed. Compliance of this order regarding declaration of the result will be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certificate copy of this order before them."
The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22 March 2005 specifically notes the submission of the State in the counter affidavit that the certificate of the petitioners had been found to be forged and they were held not to be entitled for training. Despite this defence, the aforesaid direction was issued. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, a special appeal was filed. The special appeal5 was dismissed by a Division Bench on 8 December 2005. The Division Bench in the following observations specifically noted the nature of the controversy:
"They further state that out of 170 candidates who took the Lekhpal examination in the District in question, 152 candidates were, so to speak, cancelled in the sense that their examination results were held back because they allegedly had forged certificate, 452 candidates were put out of consideration because of alleged forged certificates of which only one result was declared."
Having adverted to the above, the Division Bench held that no first information report was lodged, no follow up investigation had taken place for five years and in the meantime, the candidates had completed their training. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Upon the Supreme Court being moved by the State of UP, the civil appeal6 was disposed of on 2 June 2010. Before the Supreme Court, it was the case of the appellants-State of UP that the respondents had obtained forged certificates upon which they had obtained letters of appointment. Before the Supreme Court, the submission was that the certificates were forged and the respondents were not entitled to any relief. The Supreme Court did not accept the submission and dismissed the appeal with the following observations:
"...This being the only ground, at the first instance, one gets impressed. However, when examined in its proper perspective, this argument is found to be without any merit and substance.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to our notice that in a Writ Petition filed before the same High Court, being Writ Petition No. 34525/ 2001, Ram Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., the alleged report of the District Magistrate dated 5.6.2000 and 16.9.2000 was specifically quashed and the petitioners in that petition were granted relief. Not only this, the State of U.P. challenged the said order of the Division Bench by filing a special leave petition before this Court which also came to be dismissed on 3rd August, 2009. In other words, the order of the High Court quashing the District Magistrate's report attained finality inter se the parties.
4. That being undisputed position, we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the High Court.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
In our view, the issue which arises is whether having due regard to this factual background, the learned Single Judge was in error in allowing the writ petition. There is no dispute about the factual position that the case which traveled up to the Supreme Court pertaining to the same examination of 1989. This was the subject matter of judgments of the learned Single Judges, a Division Bench of this Court in special appeal and ultimately of the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the civil appeal. The Supreme Court has found no substance in the contention of the State to the effect that the appointments were obtained on the basis of forged documents and were, therefore, liable to be anulled. Once the matter has attained finality before the Supreme Court, it cannot be held that the learned Single Judge was in error in relying upon the aforesaid factual background.
We may also note the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that even at this stage, when the order impugned by the learned Single Judge was passed, the basic submission was that the reports of the Collector dated 31 July 1991 and 10 April 2013 had not been furnished and there was no consideration of the representation, which has been submitted by the respondents.
In this background, particularly having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court which has put to rest the controversy, the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in this special appeal.
The special appeal shall, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.2.2016 RK (Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 24013 of 2016 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 63 of 2016 *** Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The delay of 84 days in filing the special appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.2.2016 RK (Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)