Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) ONE of the ground for non suiting the petitioners for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin is that the average recovery against the target determined by authorities concerned in the last four Fasals by petitioners is less than average 70% and, therefore, petitioners' service cannot be said to be satisfactory as contemplated under Rule 5 of U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "1974 Rules"). Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in respect to other employees the respondents-authorities have taken into consideration the percentage of recovery and not percentage of target set by the authorities but in the case of petitioners they have been discriminated. He referred to the case of one Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, who is at serial No. 2 of the seniority list and in column Nos. 12 and 13 the percentage of recovery and percentage against target are mentioned. The column Nos. 12 and 13 in respect to Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava and two petitioners are as under: JUDGEMENT_76_ADJ3_2011Image1.jpg The decision taken by the authorities in respect to Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava on page 88 of the paper book shows that he has been held suitable for promotion since in last four Fasals the average recovery in his case was found 70%, which reads as under: JUDGEMENT_76_ADJ3_2011Image2.jpg
(3.) SIMILAR is the position in respect to Sri Mohammad ldu and Sri Shesh Bahadur, who are at serial Nos. 5 and 16 respectively in seniority list. Their recovery percentage in respect to columns Nos. 12 and 13 are as under: JUDGEMENT_76_ADJ3_2011Image3.jpg Sri Mohammad Idu and Sri Shesh Bahadur have also been found suitable for substantive appointment on the ground that average recovery in their case is more than 70% but in respect to petitioners it is the recovery percentage against standard mentioned in column No. 13 is mentioned as is evident from para 23 of the counter-affidavit which reads as under: JUDGEMENT_76_ADJ3_2011Image4.jpg JUDGEMENT_76_ADJ3_2011Image5.jpg ;