Ramakanti (Smt.) vs State of U.P. and another

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

The husband of the petitioner it is alleged was a regular Lekhpal posted at Bilhor, District Kanpur Dehat. It is also alleged that he was murdered on 2.5.1986. The petitioner being a widow claimed appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which was allowed to her on 11.6.1986.

Vide order dated 15th February,1991, Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Board had directed that such untrained Lekhpals who were appointed prior to 29.05.1990 under the Provision of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 they should be sent for training. After completing the training, such Lekhpals who were successful in the training should be retained and those who failed should be removed from service. Pursuant to the aforesaid order she was sent for training, but she failed in the same and consequently, she was removed from service vide impugned order dated 20.04.1993.

The argument of Sri I.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner is that having once appointed on compassionate ground, the training for the post could not have been made mandatory for her and she should have been allowed to continue on the post even if she failed in the said training.

I find it difficult to accept the aforesaid proposition as in the present case, the petitioner having secured appointment under the provision of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 was however required to undergo training for being able to perform the duties of Lekhpal, but unfortunately she failed. Therefore, once having failed in the training, the petitioner cannot be said to be equipped for performing the duties of Lekhpal and therefore, unsuitable for the post.

Every post under the State requires certain eligibility. A person desirous of holding post must first possess the same and only then can claim any right over the post. Of course, it presupposes that he was otherwise appointed in accordance with law.

The counsel for the petitioner has then drawn my attention to an order passed by this Court dated 8.11.1995, wherein this Court while deciding the writ petition had noticed an order dated 8.10.1981 and had directed that in case the said order is applicable in the case of the petitioner therein, he may be given benefit of the same.The petitioner has annexed the aforesaid Government Order by way of supplementary affidavit which is by the Secretary, Board of Revenue. The said order does not appear to help the petitioner in any way as by subsequent order dated 15.09.1991, (Annexure2 to the writ petition), the Board of Revenue had required all the Lekhpals who were appointed under the provision of Dying in Harness Rules should be sent for training and in case they are unsuccessful in the said training they should be removed from service.

In the circumstance, the petitioner having not been found suitable for the post on account of being unsuccessful in the training required for the post her removal cannot be faulted and, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of her grievances, if any.