Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE Petitioners have been non suited for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon on the ground that they did not cooperate for recovery for 70% and more in the relevant period which was under consideration. It is pointed out that in para 9 of the counter affidavit Respondents have disclosed that they have considered performance of the Petitioners for last four 'fasali' and not 'fasal' though the rule require that it ought to be considered in preceding four 'fasals' and not 'fasali'. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that so far as 70% recovery is concerned, Petitioners were only Collection Peon and it was not their duty to make recovery but they had to accompany with Collection Amin and there is no charge that Petitioners did not accompany Collection Amin. Hence, if recovery was less than 70%, which was not the duty of the Petitioners, they could not be made to suffer for that. He submits that both these controversy and issues have been considered in Vinay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3363 wherein similar order, passed by Respondents, were set aside.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel having gone through the aforesaid judgment and pleadings in the writ petition could not dispute that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and also could not make any substantive argument to either distinguish the aforesaid judgment or to persuade this Court to take a different view.;