Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Paragraphs 36 and 37 in which the substantial pleadings were raised with regard to the chances available to candidates who completed training to appear in the Lekhpal written examination for training has not come to be specifically denied in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 counter affidavit which read as under :-

"12. That, in reply to the contents of paragraph Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the writ petition, it is further submitted that the services of the petitioners have been terminated due to the reasons that the petitioners have not been qualified the training examination of Lekhpal. It is further submitted that there is specific condition in the Rules of Lekhpal Service Rules that if the candidates has not been trained they have not been appointed as Lekhpal in the department and due to the reasons that the petitioners have not been passed the training examination of Lekhpal, the services of the petitioners has been cancelled by the Competent Authority according to the provisions and Rules and regulation of the Act.

11. The argument, therefore, advanced on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel is that these rules are mandatory and, therefore, unless a candidate qualifies the written examination after training, known as Patwari and Lekhpal Schools examination cannot be permitted to be continued on the post of Lekhpal as he did not qualify the requisite examination.

12. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

13. I find that the appointments on the post of Lekhpal has to be made as per procedure proscribed under the Rules, 1958 which provides for a candidate to be appointed after he has undergone training and he qualifies Patwari or Lekhpal Training School Examination. The Land Record Manual vide paragraphs 225 and 226 as applicable for the purposes of admission, training and examination of the Lekhpal School, and, therefore, the position stands clarified that once a candidate successfully completed training, he shall have three opportunities to qualify the written examination which precedes substantive appointment under the Rules, 1958. This being the legal situation even if the petitioners had failed in one examination, it cannot be said that they had no further opportunity to qualify two other examinations, options for which were available to them and they having qualified in the very second opportunity in terms of the rules as per the paragraphs 226 of the Land Record Manual, they were fully eligible to be continued as Lekhpals. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that they are given appointment on compassionate ground and they had successfully completed training. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that under the Rules applicable to the Lekhpal examination as per the U.P. Land Records Manual, three chances are given to such Lekhpal to clear the examination. It is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that in the subsequent examination held in the year, 2009 of Lekhpal training, the petitioners have successfully cleared the examination.

14. The Government order dated 22nd January, 2004 is, therefore, requires to be read down in the light of the provisions of paragraphs 226 of the U.P. Land Records Manual. If three opportunities are open to candidates after completing training at Lekhpal training School for the purpose of substantive appointment, generally there was no occasion for denial of such opportunity to the petitioners who were appointed on compassionate ground especially and, therefore, the argument that since the petitioners could not qualify one examination, their services were liable to be dispensed with, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, Dying in Harness Rules are special rules in the category of special law and is an exception to the general rules of recruitment. Rules, 1958 provides for procedure for appointment as Lekhpal, are general service rules for recruitment and the paragraphs 225 and 226 provides for admission to training and examination of Lekhpal candidates under the U.P. Land Records Manual is also applicable as a general rule. When Dying in Harness Rules provide vide Rule 8 for doing away with the written examination for a candidate to be appointed as dependent of the deceased Government servant then such rule is exception to the general rule and, therefore, on the sound principle of law that special law overrides to the general law, even if the petitioners could not qualify the written examination, it was not open for the department to terminate their services. Compassionate appointment is an exceptional appointment as against regular appointment to the general recruitment procedure. Rule 8 of the Dying in Harness Rules clearly provides for relaxation in age as well as other requirements. The rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall have overriding effect over the Rules, 1958 and paragraphs 225 and 226 of the U.P. Land Records Manual. Further no amount of Government order can override rules that are statutory in nature and, therefore, the order of termination can not be justified on the ground of Government order dated 22.01.2004.

15. Thus, in my considered opinion, even if the petitioners had not qualified written examination after completion of the training, their services could not have been terminated when still they had two more opportunities to qualify the same. More especially when they were given appointment on compassionate ground. Having qualified written examination subsequently conducted by Lekhpal Training School in 2009 even that criteria also stands fulfilled.

16. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18th December, 2008 and 20th December, 2008 are hereby quashed with all consequential effects.