# U.P. Lekhpals Sangh, Branch Ballia, And Others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1488
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29795 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-lekhpals-sangh-branch-ballia-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42333
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226transfer-by common order about 254
Lekhpal transferred-from one tehsil to
another-intra-district-shocking state of
affairs most of them had worked more
than 27 years-no interference called forif they do not join within 9 week at
transferred
places-adverse
entry
be
given-petition dismissed-approval from
minister-obligatory.

Held: Para-4

This is very strange. From the transfer
list dated 23.5.2012 it appears that the
transferred lekhpals were working for
several years in same Tehsils. Some were
working for 28 years, some for 27 years,
more than 40 transferred lekhpals were
working for 17 years, about 40 were
working for 16 years. No transferred
lekhpal had worked at the Tehsil from
where he was transferred for less than
10 years. This was a horrible state of
affairs.
They
ought
to
have
been
3 All] U.P. Lekhpals Sangh, Branch Ballia, And Others V. State of U.P. and others

1489
transferred earlier. In any case the
requirement of seeking approval of
minister for more than 15% lekhpals is
merely directory. Accordingly, I do not
find least error in the impugned transfer
order.

## Text

1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

been sent to the petitioner through his
college
(Mahabodhi
Inter
College,
Sarnath
Varanasi)
and
that
the
unauthorised material recovered from the
petitioner etc. had been weeded out
according to the relevant Rules. As far as
sending the application to respondent
No.1 dated 10.02.2004 is concerned in
para-10 of the counter affidavit receipt of
any such application has been denied.
Even in para-9 of the writ petition only
this much has been stated that the alleged
representation dated 10.02.2004 was sent
to respondent No.1 through respondent
No.2, Principal of the college in question.
There is absolutely no explanation as to
why no representation was directly sent to
respondent No.1. In fact after cancellation
of the result in December, 1992/ January,
1993 the first thing which the petitioner
did was filing the earlier writ petition
(Writ Petition No.5531 of 2006). All the
records pertaining to cancellation of result
had
been
weeded
out
meanwhile.
Accordingly, even the allegation that
opportunity of hearing was not provided
to the petitioner cannot be accepted. By
approaching this court and respondent
No.1 quite late, petitioner allowed the
records to be weeded out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further argued that petitioner has
passed
B.A.
and
cancellation
of
intermediate
result
would
cause
irreparable loss to him. This argument
cannot be accepted. If petitioner did not
pass intermediate and was found using
unfair means then no sympathetic view
can be taken. Moreover, such sympathy
would encourage cheating in examination
and approaching the authorities and the
courts after several years so that records
may be weeded out and a student may say
whatever he likes.

9. Accordingly, there is absolutely
no error in the impugned order. Petitioner
does not deserve grant of intermediate
certificate. Writ Petition is therefore
dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29795 of 2012

U.P. Lekhpals Sangh, Branch Ballia, And
Others

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226transfer-by common order about 254
Lekhpal transferred-from one tehsil to
another-intra-district-shocking state of
affairs most of them had worked more
than 27 years-no interference called forif they do not join within 9 week at
transferred
places-adverse
entry
be
given-petition dismissed-approval from
minister-obligatory.

Held: Para-4

This is very strange. From the transfer
list dated 23.5.2012 it appears that the
transferred lekhpals were working for
several years in same Tehsils. Some were
working for 28 years, some for 27 years,
more than 40 transferred lekhpals were
working for 17 years, about 40 were
working for 16 years. No transferred
lekhpal had worked at the Tehsil from
where he was transferred for less than
10 years. This was a horrible state of
affairs.
They
ought
to
have
been
3 All] U.P. Lekhpals Sangh, Branch Ballia, And Others V. State of U.P. and others

1489
transferred earlier. In any case the
requirement of seeking approval of
minister for more than 15% lekhpals is
merely directory. Accordingly, I do not
find least error in the impugned transfer
order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned standing counsel
for the respondents in both the writ
petitions.

First Writ Petition

2. This writ petition has been filed
by two petitioners.

3. Petitioner no.2 is General
Secretary of petitioner no.1 Lekhpal's
union. Out of 384 lekhpals working in
different tehsils of District Ballia, 254
lekhpals have been transferred by the
order dated 23.5.2012, Annexure 1 to the
writ petition passed by Chief Revenue
Officer, Ballia which has been challenged
through this writ petition (para 6 of the
writ petition). Court fees of Rs.27000/-
and odd has been paid i.e. Rs.100/- for
each transferred lekhpal. All the transfers
are intra district in the sense that each of
the affected lekhpals has been transferred
from one Tehsil of Ballia to another
Tehsil of Ballia. The main ground taken
in the writ petition is that the transfer
order is in the teeth of notification of the
Election Commission dated 23.5.2012.
The said notification was issued in respect
of elections of local bodies. The said
elections are over since long and the
notification has been withdrawn.

4. The other ground is that 70% of
lekhpals have been transferred without
seeking
approval
of
the
minister
concerned as required by transfer policy.
The restriction of transfer of not more
than 15% employees applies to transfer
beyond districts. Lekhpals are normally
not transferred beyond districts. In the
instant case also no lekhpal has been
transferred beyond district Ballia still
petitioners are not satisfied. This is very
strange. From the transfer list dated
23.5.2012 it appears that the transferred
lekhpals were working for several years in
same Tehsils. Some were working for 28
years, some for 27 years, more than 40
transferred lekhpals were working for 17
years, about 40 were working for 16
years. No transferred lekhpal had worked
at the Tehsil from where he was
transferred for less than 10 years. This
was a horrible state of affairs. They ought
to have been transferred earlier. In any
case the requirement of seeking approval
of minister for more than 15% lekhpals is
merely directory. Accordingly, I do not
find least error in the impugned transfer
order.

5. Writ petition is dismissed.

6. If within a week transferred
lekhpals do not join at the transferred
place, adverse entries shall be made in
their service records and if considered
appropriate disciplinary proceedings may
also be initiated.

Second Writ petition

7. This writ petition has also been
filed by two lekhpals who have been
transferred against the same order dated
23.5.2012 which was challenged through
the earlier writ petition. Their names are
at serial no.12 and 44 in the general
transfer order dated 23.5.2012. In respect
of those transferred lekhpals who were
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

working
at
Tehsil
Sadar
Ballia,
consequent
order
was
passed
on
24.5.2012 relieving them including two
petitioners. Transfer order and relieving
order in this writ petition has also been
challenged on the same grounds on which
it was challenged in the earlier writ
petition. This writ petition is also
dismissed on the same grounds on which
earlier writ petition has been dismissed.
Petitioners should also join within a week
otherwise adverse entries shall be made
and disciplinary proceedings if considered
necessary may also be initiated against
them.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.112012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 29911 of
2009

Ajay Veer Singh and others

 ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482prayer to quash charge sheet offence
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.-matrimonial
dispute-before
mediation center-parties comes to terms
of settlement-agreement executed-acted
upon
by
joint
settlement
affidavitconsidering divorce degree by mutual
consent-purely
personal
in
nature
dispute-no
possibility
of
prosecution
success-charge sheet along with entire
criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8

Considering the fact that the subject
matter
of
the
FIR,
subsequent
investigation, filing of the charge sheet
submitted by the police are in relation to
a
matrimonial
dispute
between
the
applicants and opposite party no. 2 and
the dispute now stands voluntarily,
mutually and amicably settled between
the
parties
vide
Joint
Settlement
Affidavit dated 18.4.2010. I see no
purpose
in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising
out
of
FIR
in
question. Moreover the parties have also
obtained a decree of divorce and all the
disputes between them have come to an
end by mutual consent. The dispute
between the parties is of a purely
personal
nature.
After
compromise
between the parties, keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury for
the Court.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 464

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J.)

1. This is an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a
prayer to quash charge-sheet in Criminal
Case No. 16470 of 2009, State Vs. Ajay
Veer Singh & others, under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act
arising out of case crime no. 849 of
2009,
P.S.
Kavi
Nagar,
DistrictGhaziabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the
State.

3. The applicant no. 1 Ajay Veer
Singh is the husband of opposite party
no. 2. The applicants no. 2 to 6 are