HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1448 of 2003 (S/S) Raj Kumar Sharma S/ o Sri Mahendra Singh … Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Division & others …. Respondents Dated :- 16 th J u n e, 20 10 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. It transpires that the petitioner, after undergoing the Patwari training course in the year 1995, was initially given an appointment on the post of Lekhpal for a period of eight months i.e. from 11.12.1996 to 02.08.1997. Subsequently, an order dated 17.10.2003 was passed by the Commissioner and, based on that order, which has not been filed in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal by the District Magistrate by an order dated 05.11.2003. Subsequently, the Commissioner, by an order dated 15.11.2003, has withdrawn the order dated 17.10.2003 on the ground that a person undergoing Patwari training course cannot be allowed to work as a Lekhpal. Since the Commissioner withdrew his order, the order of the appointment of the petitioner was also withdrawn. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. One of the grounds is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. In my opinion, the appointment of a Lekhpal is governed by the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958, whereas the Patwari training and appointment on the post of Patwari is governed under the U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963, which is distinct and different. Consequently, the appointment of the petitioner as a Lekhpal was incorrect and a void order. The Commissioner was justified in withdrawing its earlier order. This court, consequently, does not find 2 any error in the impugned order and, in such matters where a void order was passed, the principles of natural justice is not applicable. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Dated 16.06.2010 LSR (Ta r u n Aga r wa la, J .)