Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) -Petitioners who have been working as seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis under the Collector, Deoria since 1976, are claiming regularisation of their services. They had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 28948 of 1993 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.10.1997 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with law and the guidelines issued in the case of Virendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1995 (2) ESC 104 (All).
(2.) THE Collector, Deoria has vide impugned order dated 8.9.1998 rejected the claim of the petitioners and hence this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order as well as praying for a direction to the respondents to give regular appointment to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis on the basis of their seniority and suitability and also to give them all other consequential benefits of service. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1977 seniority list of the seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis had been prepared in which the names of the petitioners had also been shown, but thereafter the respondents did not prepare any fresh seniority list and although the petitioners continue to work as seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis but the respondents are not giving the benefit of regularisation of service as had been directed by this Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the aforesaid judgment of this Court a direction had been issued regarding appointment on the posts of Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis. It was provided therein that 50 % of the vacancies should be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% be given to the seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis in accordance with their seniority but subject to the conditions that their work and conduct had been good and for that purpose the District Magistrate was directed to prepare a seniority list and thereafter appoint a Selection Committee for considering the case of such seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis. It was further provided that the criteria fixed in the Collection Amins' Rules, 1974 should be made applicable with regard to regularisation of seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis and the relaxation of the age limit as provided for the Seasonal Collection Amins may also be extended to the seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that while deciding the representation of the petitioners as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 28948 of 1993 the respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Deoria did not consider the aforesaid guidelines issued in Virendra Singh's case, (supra) although it had been so directed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order does not show that the guidelines issued by this Court in the aforesaid case of Virendra Singh had at all been considered by the respondent No. 1. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected merely on the ground that the regularisation in those services which are outside the purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission could be done only in cases where the claimants had worked on ad hoc basis for three years or more and since in the case of the petitioners they had not worked for three full years continuously, their services could not be regularised. The respondent No. 1 did not consider the Collection Amins' Rule, 1974 but instead consider the U. P. Zila Collectorate Lipik Varg Sewa Niyamawali, 1980. Considering the aforesaid provisions, the claim of the petitioners had been rejected. In my view since this Court had clearly directed the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the directions issued in the case of Virendra Singh (supra), the respondents ought to have considered that 50% posts were to be filled up from amongst the seasonal Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis on which posts the petitioners have been working since 1976 and ought to have applied the criteria laid down in the Collection Amins' Rules, 1974 and not other rules on which he has relied upon. Thus, the impugned order dated 8.9.1998 is liable to be set aside and is thus quashed.;