- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition claiming a writ of mandamus for cancelling the declaration of the Lekhpal examination and directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to undergo Lekhpal training. A counter-affidavit has been filed and in paragraph 4 of the same it has been stated that the petitioners never passed in the written examination and hence there was no question of calling them for inter view. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this averment in the counter-affidavit is false. I am not in agreement with this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no reason to dis believe the averments in the counter-af fidavit that the petitioners never passed the written test. In this case by an interim order dated 28-4-1993 the petitioners were provisional ly admitted in the Lekhpal training school, Gorakhpur. In my opinion, this interim order confers no right on the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in pursuance of the interim order dated 28-4- 1993 the petitioners completed their training and some of the petitioners have passed the training examination and have joined as Lekhpals while some others have failed in the training examination. He submitted that every candidate who failed in the training examination has a right to appear again in the next examination. In my opinion this argument is not available to the petitioners. It is only the person who has been validly selected in the entrance test of Lekhpal who can claim that he has three chances of appearing in the training examination after the training is over. A person who has in fact failed in the written test for seeking admission cannot raise this plea at all as he was never validly selected. Hence this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no force.;