High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kambood Babu Saxena v. Commissioaner and Secretary And another - WRIT - A No. 17329 of 1998  RD-AH 802 (16 September 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17329 of 1998
Kambood Babu Saxena Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue and another
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner as having passed the Lekhpal examination and to appoint him on the post of Lekhpal w.e.f. 1994.
The petitioner was selected and admitted in the Lekhpal Training School, Shahjahanpur and after taking the requisite training he appeared at the Examination of the year 1990 but was declared failed on 12.7.1991. Rule 224(4) of the Bhulekh Rules provides that the minimum per centage of marks to pass a paper is 50% of the maximum marks and a candidate has to necessarily pass in all the papers before he is issued a certificate. It has further been provided that in case a candidate has not failed in more than two papers, then in the Examination to be held in the year following the Main Examination, the candidate shall not be required to appear in those papers in which he has obtained at least 66% marks. In the 1990 Examination the petitioner had failed in more than two papers though he had obtained 74% marks in Paper No. 2, namely, Mensuration. It, however, appears that on the basis of the communication dated 24.7.1991, the petitioner was exempted from appearing in the aforesaid paper of Mensuration in the next Examination to be held in the year 1991. The petitioner appeared at the 1991 Examination but was declared failed on 12.10.1992 even though the aforesaid marks obtained by the petitioner in Mensuration of the 1990 Examination were awarded to him. The petitioner, however, did not appear in the Examinations held in 1992 or 1993 but he appeared thereafter in the 1994 Examination in which he was declared failed. In this examination, the petitioner opted not to appear in paper No. 2, namely, Mensuration.
This writ petition has been filed for a relief that the marks of paper No.2 obtained by the petitioner in the 1990 Examination should be counted towards the 1994 Examination.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is only because of the communication dated 24.7.1991 that he did not appear in paper No.2 in the 1994 Examination. He, therefore, submitted that the marks obtained by the petitioner in paper No.2 in the 1990 Examination should be counted for the purposes of 1994 examination.
This Court on 21.5.11998 directed that if the petitioner files a representation, it shall be considered and disposed of by a speaking order within a period of six weeks. The respondents, along with the counter affidavit, have annexed a copy of the order dated 27.7.1998 by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by a detailed order.
The question that arises for consideration is whether the marks obtained by the petitioner in paper No.2 in the Examination held in 1990 can be awarded to the petitioner for the said paper in respect of the 1994 Examination. In my opinion, this cannot be done. In the first instance, on a bare perusal of the Rules it is clear that since the petitioner had failed in more than two papers of the 1990 Examination, this benefit could not have been given to the petitioner even for the 1991 Examination. However, under some mistake this benefit was granted to the petitioner for the 1991 Examination in which he appeared but was declared failed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a mistake should be perpetuated even for the year 1994 examination cannot be accepted.
As stated above, firstly the benefit of exempting a candidate from appearing in those papers in which they had obtained more than 66% was available only to such candidates who had failed in not more than two papers and secondly such a benefit could be given only in the Examination following the Main Examination i.e. to say in case a candidate had failed in not more than two papers then the marks of those papers in which the candidate had obtained more than 66% marks, could be carried over to the examination following the main examination. Thus, even if the petitioner had failed in not more than two papers then too the marks obtained by him in paper No.2 in the 1990 Examination could be given to him in the 1991 Examination only and not in any subsequent Examination.
The records clearly reveal that even for the year 1991 Examination such benefit could not have been given to the petitioner since he had failed in more than two papers. The petitioner could, therefore, not be entitled for this benefit for the 1994 Examination.
The plea of estoppel sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived as there was no assurance given by the respondents to the petitioner for the 1994 Examination nor could such an assurance be given in the face of Rule 224(4) of the Bhulekh Rules. Whatever assurance was given to the petitioner, was for the Examination of the year 1991 and as stated above even that assurance was against the Rules.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.