Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 29th April, 2006, whereby the petitioner has been denied from sending on training for Lekhpal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, State of U.P. has issued a Circular to all the District Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh on 27th March, 2006, whereby he issued a direction to send all those Lekhpals who have completed 10 years service and this would be the last opportunity for them. If any one of them fails to avail the opportunity he will not get any opportunity for training.

"8. That subsequently the District Magistrate, Faizabad vide his letter No. 88/89/Bhulekh (Saat)/Apra.Lekh./2006 dated: operation 29.4.2006. of 3.5.2006 stayed the the Order dated:29.4.2006.

9. That thereafter vide Order dated: 3.5.2006 the Petitioner has been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda.

10. That in view of the aforesaid facts since the Petitioner has now been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda, the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition no more survives and there does not seem to be any Petitioner ground good to pursue for the the instant Writ Petition any further, which has since become infructuous and liable to be dismissed as such."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed in the year 2006 and at that time the petitioner was more than 50 years and he has attained the age of superannuation.

6. After going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted position in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda which is relief prayed for by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 29.4.2006 was stayed and the petitioner was sent for training. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. The impugned order cannot survive. Consequently, the order dated 29.4.2006 is quashed.