ARJUN LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners, who were appointed as temporary Lekhpals, question the validity of the orders dated 28th of November, 1981 passed by the Addl. Sub -Divisional Officer, Lakhimpur terminating their services with immediate effect.

(2.) THE contention of the Petitioners is that the Addl. Sub -Divisional Officer, Lakhimpur had, under the Lekhpals Service Rules, no jurisdiction to terminate their services.

(3.) ON 7th of January, 1982 the Chief Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Addl. Sub -Divisional Officer to terminate the services of a Lekhpal. The Chief Standing Counsel has, under instructions from a representative of the Board of Revenue, conceded the position that the Addl. Sub -Divisional Officer cannot be said to be an Asstt. Collector Incharge of a Sub -Division within the meaning of Land Revenue Act. In this view of the matter, we have, as indicated in our order dated 7th of January, 1982, proceeded to dispose of the petitions finally at the preliminary stage after hearing the learned Chief Standing Counsel.