Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel and perused the record.
(2.) AS the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned counsels for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioners are working on the post of Seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis in Collectorate, Sitapur/Pratapgarh.
(3.) HE further submits that the controversy involved in the present case had already settled by this Court at Allahabad vide order dated 26.08.2011 passed in Writ -A No. 68698 of 2006 (Jiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others), relevant portion reads as under: I have gone through the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate Kanput Dehat. The tenor of the order on which the petitioner's representation has been rejected appears to be that there was no regularization rule and no post was vacant at the relevant time. So far as the rule is concerned, the State government has made amendment in the Rule of 1980 known as Uttar Pradesh District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service (Second Amendment) Rule, 2011 which contains that 30% posts have to be filled up from amongst the Seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis. So far as the availability of the vacancy is concerned, number of years have passed and by now the post must have fallen vacant as from the perusal of amended rule it transpires that zone of consideration for 'appoint' of Seasonal A.W.B.N. in regular stream has expanded and now they can be appointed against any post mentioned in Category 'A' but the petitioner's case could not be considered either because of non existence of rule for the said purpose or due to pendency of writ petition. It also transpire from the perusal of amendment made in the rules that for regularization/appointment in regular stream, work of four faslies from the first date of the recruitment year has to be taken into consideration. Obviously, in this case, if the petitioner's case is considered in future, he will not be found working on the Seasonal basis on the first date of the recruitment year, as the matter was pending through out in the litigation and the petitioner was not engaged thereafter. Therefore, it will be very harsh on the petitioner if his case is not considered merely because of his not working in the previous four fasli from the first date of recruitment year. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is observed that whenever the Selection Committee meets on the occurrence of vacancy in regular stream of the posts mentioned under Category 'A' of the amended Rule, the petitioner's case shall also be considered ignoring the upper age limit. So far as the petitioner's working in previous four faslies from the recruitment year is concerned, the assessment of work of previous four fasli with regard to the petitioner's case is to be considered by the respondents from the entire period of his working either from top or from bottom on seasonal basis. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.;