# Ajay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1254
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-11-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66640 of 2010
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-41963
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Service Rule 1958-Rule 7-readwith U.P.
Subordinate
revenue
Executive
(Bhulekh) Servicce Rules, 1977-Rule 17-
3 All] Lakhmi Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1255
Petitioner
being
fully
qualified
and
eligible as per recommendation made by
D.M.fro appointment as R.I.-Board of
Revenue by order 04.06.2010-selected
for promotion on post of Revenue
Inspector-onsame day being unaware
petition participated for promotion on
post of Registrar kanungo-stood first in
merit but junior appointed ignoring
petitioner-petition claimed that due to
bad health unable to join post of
Revenue Inspector being filed post-and
Registrar kanungo being Ist in merit can
do
official
work
easily-but
never
challenge the selection order dated
04.06.2010-not entitled to claim Post of
R.K. Being already selected as Revenue
Inspector-Petition dismissed.

Held: Para 8

It is is not in dispute that by the order
dated 4.6.2010, the petitioner has been
selected/promoted
on
the
post
of
Revenue Inspector by the Board. The
said order has not been challenged and
has become final. Even though, neither
in the writ petition nor in the counter
affidavit, it is stated that for the post of
Revenue Inspector, the Collector has
sought the name from the petitioner, but
Rule 17, which provides for promotion
on the post of Revenue Inspector,
contemplates that the name of the
candidates would be selected by the
Collector, therefore, it appears that the
Collector must have recommended the
name of the petitioner and the petitioner
has been promoted/appointed as the
Revenue Inspector by the Board by the
order dated 4.6.2010 and when the
Lekhpals have been asked to give their
names for promotion on the post of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago,
the
petitioner applied for the promotion on
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago, but has not been considered
as he has already been selected and
promoted
on
the
post
of
Revenue
Inspector and ceased to be a Lekhpal on
the
date
of
the
consideration
for
promotion on the post of Assistant
Registrar, Kanunago. Since the order of
the Board of Revenue dated 4.6.2010 is
not being challenged in none of the writ
petitions, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned orders.

## Text

1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
heirs. It only provides that in case a
Government servant dies in harness,
one member of the family would be
entitled to be considered for grant of
compassionate appointment. The Rules
do not specify the manner of death that
would qualify any employment to the
heirs. The language of the Rules clearly
suggests that all kind of death caused
by every possible manner, would be
included under the Rules and the
benefit of employment has to be given
to the dependants of the person, who
dies in harness and the cases where
civil death is presumed in law, are not
liable to be excluded.

7. The view taken by me finds
support from the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in the case of
Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors., [(2005) 1 UPLBEC 858] and
Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors., [2009 (6) ADJ 591].

8. In the present case, admittedly,
the father of the petitioner was missing
for 7 years and was presumed to be
dead. Acknowledging the factum of
death, the respondents not only starting
paying family pension to the mother of
the petitioner, but also released all the
post
retiral
benefits.
In
such
circumstances, there is no reason why
the benefit of the Rules will not be
applicable in the case of the petitioner.

9. Further a Government Order
cannot have overriding effect on the
statutory Rules. Once the Rules do not
exclude the cases of civil death, the
same cannot be done by means of a
Government Order. In view of above,
the
Government
Order
dated
09.12.1998 being relied upon by the
learned Standing Counsel is of no avail
and the consideration of petitioner for
compassionate appointment cannot be
rejected
on
the
basis
of
said
Government Order.

10. In view of the above facts and
discussions, the impugned order dated
20.11.2008 passed by respondent no. 2,
Deputy
Inspect
General
(Establishment)
U.P.
Police
Headquarters, Allahabad is not liable to
be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Writ
petition
stands
allowed.
Respondent no. 2 is directed to
reconsider the petitioner's application
for employment under the Rules in
accordance with law within two months
from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before him.

11. In the facts and circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66640 of 2010

Lakhmi Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.M.A. Abdy

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Inferior Revenue Clerk (Registrar
kanungo)and Asst. Registrar Kanungo)
Service Rule 1958-Rule 7-readwith U.P.
Subordinate
revenue
Executive
(Bhulekh) Servicce Rules, 1977-Rule 17-
3 All] Lakhmi Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1255
Petitioner
being
fully
qualified
and
eligible as per recommendation made by
D.M.fro appointment as R.I.-Board of
Revenue by order 04.06.2010-selected
for promotion on post of Revenue
Inspector-onsame day being unaware
petition participated for promotion on
post of Registrar kanungo-stood first in
merit but junior appointed ignoring
petitioner-petition claimed that due to
bad health unable to join post of
Revenue Inspector being filed post-and
Registrar kanungo being Ist in merit can
do
official
work
easily-but
never
challenge the selection order dated
04.06.2010-not entitled to claim Post of
R.K. Being already selected as Revenue
Inspector-Petition dismissed.

Held: Para 8

It is is not in dispute that by the order
dated 4.6.2010, the petitioner has been
selected/promoted
on
the
post
of
Revenue Inspector by the Board. The
said order has not been challenged and
has become final. Even though, neither
in the writ petition nor in the counter
affidavit, it is stated that for the post of
Revenue Inspector, the Collector has
sought the name from the petitioner, but
Rule 17, which provides for promotion
on the post of Revenue Inspector,
contemplates that the name of the
candidates would be selected by the
Collector, therefore, it appears that the
Collector must have recommended the
name of the petitioner and the petitioner
has been promoted/appointed as the
Revenue Inspector by the Board by the
order dated 4.6.2010 and when the
Lekhpals have been asked to give their
names for promotion on the post of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago,
the
petitioner applied for the promotion on
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago, but has not been considered
as he has already been selected and
promoted
on
the
post
of
Revenue
Inspector and ceased to be a Lekhpal on
the
date
of
the
consideration
for
promotion on the post of Assistant
Registrar, Kanunago. Since the order of
the Board of Revenue dated 4.6.2010 is
not being challenged in none of the writ
petitions, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned orders.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J. )

1. The petitioner was appointed
on the post of Lekhpal on 27.4.1974.
He became permanent on 24.7.1976.
He is posted as a Lekhpal in Tehsil
Syana, District Bulandshahr.

2. It appears that vide letter dated
7th July, 2010, the Additional District
Magistrate
(Administration),
Bulandshahr invited applications from
the Lekhpals, who have completed
their six years of service, for the
promotion on the post of Assistant
Registrar, Kanunago. It has been
directed
to
give
information
by
12.7.2010. The petitioner was at serial
no.1 in the seniority list of the
Lekhpals.
In
pursuance
of
the
aforesaid letter of the Additional
District Magistrate (Administration),
the petitioner also applied for the
promotion,
vide
application
dated
14.7.2010. The name of the petitioner
was
sent
alongwith
the
relevant
information by the Tehsildar, Syana,
on 23.7.2010 by which it has also been
informed that the promotion is to be
made by the District Magistrate after
interview to be held on 24.7.2010. The
petitioner has been directed to appear
on 14.7.2010 at 10:00 A.M. in the
office of the Assistant Land Revenue
Officer along with the certificate of
the educational qualification and other
records. When the petitioner came to
know
that
by
the
order
dated
24.7.2010, juniors to the petitioner
have been promoted on the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago, he
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
filed Writ Petition No. 66640 of 2010,
claiming his promotion on the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago and for
quashing the order dated 24.7.2010 by
which juniors to the petitioner have
been promoted and the petitioner has
been
ignored.
This
Court
has
entertained the writ petition and
directed the respondents to file the
counter affidavit. The counter and the
rejoinder affidavits have been filed in
the said writ petition.

3. Meanwhile, on 11th February,
2011, a Government Order has been
passed in pursuance to that, the
District Magistrate, Bulandshahr has
passed an order on 19th February,
2011 whereby the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Syana, Bulandshahr has
been directed to relieve the petitioner
for the training of Revenue Inspector.
Thereafter on 20th February, 2011, the
petitioner
made
a
representation
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
requesting therein that since only two
years'
service
remained
and
deteriorating health of the petitioner as
well has his wife, he is not able to go
outside the District, therefore, he may
be exempted from the training of the
Revenue Inspector. On consideration
of the representation, the petitioner
was
not
relieved,
but
again
on
24.5.2011, an order has been passed
by the Tehsildar, Syana whereby the
petitioner was relieved for training.
The petitioner has sought leave and
further made a representation before
the District Magistrate that he has
sought promotion on the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago for
which the writ petition is pending and
in case if he will be asked to go for
training of Revenue Inspector, the writ
petition
will
become
infructuous.
Challenging the order dated 24.5.2010
by which the petitioner has been
relieved, the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No. 34042 of 2011, which has
been disposed of vide order dated
9.6.2011 whereby this Court directed
the petitioner to make a representation
before the Collector and the Collector
has been asked to dispose of the same
within six weeks. The petitioner filed
a
detailed
representation
dated
22.6.2011
on
which
the
District
Magistrate has sought a report from
the Tehsildar, Syana and thereafter by
the order dated 3.8.2011 rejected the
representation of the petitioner mainly
on the ground that the Board of
Revenue vide order dated 4.6.2010
promoted the petitioner on the post of
Revenue
Inspector,
therefore,
the
claim
of
the
petitioner
for
the
promotion on the post of Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago
cannot
be
considered once the petitioner has
already been promoted. It is, however,
admitted that the petitioner was at
serial no.1 of the list of selected
candidates and the petitioner appeared
in the interview for the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. The
order
of
the
District
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr is being challenged in
Writ Petition No. 46605 of 2011.

4. Heard Sri S.M. Abdy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that both the
posts of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago
and
the
Revenue
Inspector
are
equivalent
posts
and
are
the
promotional posts. However, the post
3 All] Lakhmi Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1257
of Revenue Inspector is related with
the field work whereas the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago is the
post for the office work and since the
petitioner was not keeping well and
his health is not suitable to work in the
filed, the petitioner is more suitable
and is entitled for the promotion on
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago. He submitted that the
petitioner claimed his promotion on
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago and he is not aware about
the order of the Board of Revenue
dated 4.6.2010 and has never been
informed
about
the
said
order
inasmuch as the petitioner has been
asked to apply for the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago for
which he applied and also called upon
for the interview in which he appeared
and in the select list, he has been
placed at serial no.1, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to be promoted on
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago.

6. Learned Standing Counsel
submitted that the Board of Revenue
vide order dated 4.6.2010 has already
promoted the petitioner on the post of
Revenue Inspector and, therefore, till
the said order exists, the petitioner
cannot be promoted on the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Under
the Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Bhulekh Nirikshak) Service Rules,
1977, the Board of Revenue is the
authority, which selects/promotes the
Lekhpals on the post of Revenue
Inspector. The procedure for the
promotion is contemplated under Rule
17, which provides that (a) the Board,
every year, shall provide the number
of candidates to be selected by 1st of
March to the Commissioner, (b) the
Collector, first of all, collect the
names of the candidates and the
provide the same to the Commissioner,
in a proforma prescribed, by 1st of
June and (c) the Commissioner has to
send the report to the Board by 1st of
July. In the U.P. Inferior Revenue
Clerk
(Registrar
Kanunago
and
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanunago)
Service Rules, 1958, the Collector is
the
appointing
authority
of
the
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago. Under
Rule 7 of the said Rules, those
Lekhpals who have served for more
than six years, by promotion, may be
appointed as the Assistant Registrar,
Kanunago. Learned Standing Counsel
submitted that since the petitioner has
been
appointed
as
the
Revenue
Inspector, under the aforesaid Rules,
by the Board of Revenue on 4.6.2010,
he ceased to be the Lekhpal and,
therefore, he could not be considered
for the promotion on the post of
Assistant Registrar, Kanunago.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel and perused the impugned
orders.

8. It is is not in dispute that by
the order dated 4.6.2010, the petitioner
has been selected/promoted on the
post of Revenue Inspector by the
Board. The said order has not been
challenged and has become final. Even
though, neither in the writ petition nor
in the counter affidavit, it is stated that
for the post of Revenue Inspector, the
Collector has sought the name from
the petitioner, but Rule 17, which
provides for promotion on the post of
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Revenue Inspector, contemplates that
the name of the candidates would be
selected by the Collector, therefore, it
appears that the Collector must have
recommended
the
name
of
the
petitioner and the petitioner has been
promoted/appointed as the Revenue
Inspector by the Board by the order
dated 4.6.2010 and when the Lekhpals
have been asked to give their names
for promotion on the post of Assistant
Registrar, Kanunago, the petitioner
applied for the promotion on the post
of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago, but
has not been considered as he has
already been selected and promoted on
the post of Revenue Inspector and
ceased to be a Lekhpal on the date of
the consideration for promotion on the
post of Assistant Registrar, Kanunago.
Since the order of the Board of
Revenue dated 4.6.2010 is not being
challenged
in
none
of
the
writ
petitions, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned orders.

9. In the result, the writ petition
fails and is dismissed.
---------