A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Dinesh Kumar Asthana, petitioner was first engaged on May 5, 1980, according to him, as per prescribed procedure, as Seasonal Collection Amin and he has been working throughout as such. Some more Seasonal Collection Amins were engaged by the Department and some of such persons felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents and raised a dispute that persons Junior to those (including the petitioner) were ignored arbitrarily and for no legal sanction, some of the Seasonal Collection Amins, who were junior to them, were absorbed against the substantive vacancies of Collection Amins. Some of those aggrieved persons, including the present petitioner, filed C.M.W.P. No. Nil of 1993, Sri Srikant Mishra and 9 others v. State of U. P. and others. The said petition was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated February 9, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) following the judgment of this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 43069 of 1992 decided on November 23, 1992, Ramanand Gupta and others v. State of U. P. through Collector, Maharajganj and another ; wherein this Court directed the concerned authority to make appointments of Seasonal Collection Amins in future in ensuring that persons whose names appear on the seniority list maintained, as indicated in the said judgment, were to be given appointments subject to their availability on the post of Seasonal Collection Amins strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency and adhering to the orders regarding reservations of the post issued by the State Government, if any. The said judgment further required that such a list shall be required for making ad hoc appointments as against substantive vacancies as well (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Admittedly, under the directions of the Court in aforementioned petition, the concerned authority issued order dated June 17, 1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and for making appointments in pursuance to the directions contained in the said order as per list enclosed therewith. Copy of such list has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 73. The petitioner has not clearly stated that the said list prepared under directions contained in the judgment and order dated February 9, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is disputed by him. According to the petitioner, even though the said list was prepared, but ignored by the concerned authorities arbitrarily, who picked up persons junior to the petitioner and issued order of regularization/absorption against the regular vacancies of Collection Amins.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition praying for writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to give regular appointment to the petitioner on the post of regular Collection Amin against the available substantive vacant post in the department and further a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from disturbing the services of the petitioner working as Seasonal Collection Amin till regular appointment is made. Apparently, there is no warrant, in the facts of the case, to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition.
(3.) The petitioner's grievance is that he has, though approached the concerned authorities by filing representation dated October 20, 1995 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition) but to no avail, in spite of written representations/reminders even thereafter.;