D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sidharth Singh, learned Special Counsel representing the respondent no. 1 and Sri A. K. Mishra, Learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2.
(2.) THE petitioners were Seasonal clerks of the Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Babhnan, District Basti, the respondent no. 2, which is, indisputably, a Cooperative Cane Development Union. By means of instant petition the petitioners have made two prayers, namely, (a) issuance of a writ of mandamus directing (he respondents to treat them as working since 28th July, 1984 ; and (b) direction to the respondents to pay to them salary for the period between 28th July, 1984 and 15th July, 1985, when the season expired. Sri A N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, very fairly concedes that the prayers of the petitioners, as contained in the petition, cannot be granted. Alternatively, he prays that the case of the petitioners may be considered for the purposes of issuing direction for re-employment.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the controversy involved in the petition is to be adjudicated upon in the light of the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, hereinafter called the Regulations. Regulation 21 of the Regulations provides that at the end of each crushing season the seasonal staff would be classified in two categories, namely, 'A' and 'B'. It further provides that if the staff is to be placed in category 'B' certain procedure has to be followed. Regulation 22 contemplates that after the categorisation of the staff, the list shall be put up before the Zonal or District Authorities for approval and he, after following the procedure prescribed therein, may accord approval in the prescribed manner. Thereafter the list will be final and notified on the notice board. The provisions contained in Regulation 26 entitles the seasonal staff placed in category 'A' to be re-employed in the next season automatically unless the re-employment becomes impossible on account of reduction of the strength of the staff etc. Regulation 31 provides for appeal to the specified authority against the decision of the Zonal or District authorities arrived at under Regulation 22.;