High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Algoo Ram v. State - WRIT - A No. 14635 of 1995  RD-AH 31 (8 July 1999)
Court No. 24
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14635 Of 1995
Algoo Ram and others................Petitioners
State of U.P. & others..............Respondents
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
1. The State Government was engaging persons as untrained Lekhpal on the temporary basis. Some of these persons filed a few writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Court gave a direction to regularise the services of such persons. In pursuance thereof, the State Government issued a G.O. dated 15.01.11986. In substance the G.O. was that the District Magistrate of the different districts were required to sent names of the candidates, who had worked at least for a year as a Lekhpal, for training. Petitioners were also sent for training in Government Training Centre, Agra for the session 1989-90.
2. There was some complaint that many persons have obtained admissions by producing forged certificates. The Board of Revenue sent a letter on 19.02.1990 to conduct an inquiry in this regard. The S.D.M., Agra conducted an inquiry and recommended the cancellation of admissions of the candidates who had obtained their admission by committing fraud and forgery. The A.D.M. (Administration), Agra by his orders dated 05.05.1990 cancelled the admission of the persons found guilty in the inquiry by the S.D.M., Agra.
3. These persons 33 in all whose admissions were cancelled, filed a writ petition (WP No. 16398 Of 1990; Algoo Ram and 32 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) against the order dated 5.5.1990 of the A.D.M. (Administration), Agra. These persons were also permitted to appear in the examination in pursuance of a interim order in that petition. But their result was not declared. The respondents took a plea in that petition that 32 candidates had obtained admission on the basis of forged documents but ss far as 33rd person was concerned, there was no such allegation. A Single Judge of this Court allowed that writ petition by the judgement dated 13.09.1991. He has directed that the result of the candidate, against whom there was no allegation of fraud, should be declared immediately. But as far as the remaining 32 persons were concerned, the Court in substance quashed the order dated 05.05.1990 on the ground that no opportunity was given to them and granted liberty to the respondents, if they were so advised, to hold an inquiry complying with the principles of natural justice.
4. A fresh inquiry, in pursuance of direction of this Court, has been held. The A.D.M. (Administration), Agra sent a notice to them for appearance. This notice was served upon them through the concerned District Magistrate. They led their evidence and filed representations. The District Magistrate, Agra by his letter dated 10.9.1992 send the inquiry report alongwith records to the Board of Revenue, who after considering the evidence and the representation made by the candidates has by its order dated 08.03.1997 held that 32 persons have got their admission on the basis of forged documents. Their admission was cancelled. This order of Board of Revenue was communicated to the persons concerned by the letter dated 01.05.1995 of the District Magistrate, Agra.
5. Twenty three out of those thirty two persons (whose admission was cancelled) have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Agra dated 1.5.1995 cancelling their admission and for direction to declare the results of the petitioners in respect of their Lekhpal Examination, 1989-90 held in the month of July 1990. During the pendency of the writ this court passed an order1 on 8.10.1998 to declare their results. This was subject to the final order in the writ petition. In pursuance of the direction, the respondents have declared the results and have filed a supplementary counter affidavit. Petitioners are unsuccessful; they have failed. They have filed an amendment application in this writ petition challenging these results.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
6. I have heard Dr.R.G.Padia for the petitioners and the standing counsel for the respondents. Following points arise for determination:-
(i)Have the petitioners been given reasonable opportunity in the inquiry. Is this inquiry liable to be quashed. Has the direction of this Court in the judgement dated 13.09.1991 been followed?
(ii)Should the impugned order dated 1.5.1995 (the letter of the District Magistrate, Agra) be quashed on the ground that it contains no reasons.
(iii)Is the result, where petitioners have failed, liable to be quashed?
Ist Point: DIRECTION OF THIS COURT.
7. This Court by the judgement dated 13.09.1991 had directed declaration of the result of one candidate and for remaining 32 candidates had given liberty to the respondents to initiate an inquiry. Petitioners were to be associated with the inquiry and were to be permitted to lead their evidence. The petitioners have been given a notice to adduce their evidence. They have filed their evidence and also filed their representations. They have been associated with the inquiry. The principles of natural justice have been met. The direction of this court in its order dated 15.09.1995 have been complied.
8. According to the petitioners they had worked on honorarium. There is neither any practise nor custom, nor there is any rule to permit any one to work on honorarium on the post of Lekhpal. The Board of Revenue after considering the evidence and representation came to the conclusion that: petitioners stand is not correct; they have not worked as Lekhpal; and have obtained admission on the basis of forged documents. There is no illegality in the order.
2nd Point- REASONS NOT GIVEN
9. The order of the District Magistrate dated 01.05.1995 is merely a communication of the detailed order passed by the Board of Revenue. The order of Board of Revenue has been brought on record by means the counter affidavit. The order (of District Magistrate, Agra dated 1.5.95) can not be set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in that letter2. Detailed reasons are contained in the order of Board of Revenue. It is on the record of this writ petition.
3rd Point: THE DECLARATION OF THE RESULT.
10. The result of the petitioners has been declared in pursuance of the direction given by this Court. The typed copy of the results has been filed through a supplementary counter affidavit sworn by one Sri Baccha Lal, Tehsildar, Kharagarh, district Agra. The typed copy is signed by the Tehsildar as part of the affidavit but is not signed by any other officer. The only submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the result is not signed by any one and as such it is illegal. The typed copy of the result has been filed alongwith an affidavit sworn by Tehsildar. There is no allegation that it is not a true copy of the original or there is any other irregularity. It can not be disbelieved merely on the ground that the typed copy filed alongwith affidavit is not signed; especially if it is typed copy of the original and has been filed alongwith properly sworn affidavit.
10. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.