Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH BABU & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dinesh Babu & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 761 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 13475 (17 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Special Appeal No. 761 of 2004

Dinesh Babu and another .....Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. and others .....Respondents

******

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 22.5.2001 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39247 of 1999.

Admittedly, the petitioners-appellants have not got training under Rule 9 of the U.P. Consolidation Lekhpals Service Rules, 1978 and thus, they were not eligible to be given appointment to the post of Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department. The contention that they have been given training by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is also of no help to the petitioners-appellants, since the Assistant Consolidation Officer has not been empowered or authorised to impart such training. The training is to be received at the training Centre established by the State Government under the Rules. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the training imparted to the appellants by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is unauthorised and is no training within the meaning of the relevant Rules.

It is well settled law that a person having no requisite qualification, cannot insist or claim appointment to the post, which is to be filled by a person, having qualification prescribed under the Rules. For the post of Lekhpal a person is required to have received training under Rule 9 of the said Rules. Besides that for such training a selection is conducted by the State Government and only the persons, who qualify, on merit are sent for training. Neither the appellants were selected nor they have completed the training at an authorised centre and thus they have no right to claim appointment to the post of Lekhpal.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal, being without any merit, is accordingly  dismissed.  

Dated:17.8.2006

SKM


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.