R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , who claims to have been appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin, has filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services and absorb him as Collection Amin in the Revenue Department of the State. Seasonal Collection Amins are appointed for a particular season in a year and their appointments come to an end with the end of season. In case they are found efficient, they are appointed in subsequent years on seasonal basis. There is no continuity of appointment as it all depends on the appointments, which are issued afresh every year for particular season.
(2.) THE question of regularisation of Seasonal Collection Amin has been considered by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Khare and another v. State of U.P. and others Writ Petition No. 24550 of 1991 decided on 5 -2 -1993 and Nav Bahar Singh v. The District Magistrate, Moradabad and others, Special Appeal No. 157 of 1992, decided on 5 -12 -1992. Following decision of the Division Bench in the Special Appeal of Nav Bahar Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge in Ramanand Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and another Writ Petition No. 43069 of 1992, decided on 23 -11 -1992, relevant extract of which is reproduced below, has issued direction for maintenance of accurate record of Seasonal Collection Amins on the basis of their seniority for appointment against the future vacancies. From the very nature of the petitioners appointment it is evidently clear that they had no right to the post as they were employed as Seasonal Collection Amins, an employment that ends with the season for which the appointment is given. No ground for interfering in the order terminating the service of the petitioner is, therefore, made out from the materials on the record, however, it is clear that a seniority list of seasonal collection Amins who have had been working in the District has been maintained by the appointing authority on the basis of the period of service rendered by a person as seasonal collection Amin. In the circumstances, therefore, instead of making appointment as against the vacancies in the posts of Seasonal Collection Amins by adopting a pick and choose method the respondent authorities should make use of the seniority list of seasonal collection Amins maintained by them and utilise the services of experienced seasonal collection Amins. This Court vide its decision in the case of Nav Bahar Singh v. The District Magistrate Moradabad and others, Special Appeal No. 157 of 1992, decided on 5 -11 -1992, had observed that collection Amins who are given seasonal appointment should be preferred and given appointments in accordance with their seniority -cum -efficiency. The respondents shall, therefore, maintain an accurate record of seasonal collection Amins who had been working with them in order of seniority for the purpose of fixation whereof the respective periods of service should be reckoned. In the circumstances of the case, to avoid arbitrariness, it further appears to be necessary to direct that while making appointments of seasonal collection Amins in future, the respondent -authorities shall ensure that persons whose names are borne on the seniority list maintained as indicated above should, subject to availability, be given appointments on the posts of seasonal collection Amin strictly on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency and adhering to the orders regarding reservations of the posts issued by the State Government, if any. It is further observed that such list shall be utilised for making ad hoc appointments as against the substantive vacancies, as well. Following the above decisions, this Court again in the case of Deepraj and others v. State of U.P. and another Writ Petition No. 43425 of 1992 and Kanhaiya Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and another Writ Petition No. 43436 of 1992, decided on 18 -2 -1993, has issued directions similar to those quoted above, which were issued in the case of Ramanand Gupta (supra).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also argued that even the persons, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner's appointment, have been regularised by the respondents and the claim of the petitioner has been ignored although he was senior to them. It is further submitted that in view of the Government order the services of the seasonal collection Amins are liable to be regularised. This submission has substance. Appointment of seasonal collection Amins to the post of Collection Amins their regularisation in the regular cadre of Amins have to be made according to seniority -cum -efficiency in accordance with the Rules, whereby certain percentage of vacancies of Collection Amins are to be filled in by appointment of seasonal collection Amins. It is not open to the State to ignore altogether their seniority and appoint/regularise junior seasonal collection Amins in the cadre of collection Amins. As the petitioner has not challenged any appointment of a seasonal collection Amin as Collection Amin, this Court cannot interfere with any such appointment. However, whenever appointments are to be made either to the post of Collection Amin or to the post of seasonal collection Amin, they have to be made on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency. Petitioner, as such, is entitled to get his case considered for absorption/regular appointment in the cadre of collection Amin in accordance with seniority -cum -efficiency in accordance with Rules. In case temporary/adhoc appointments are to be made to the post of seasonal collection Amin or Collection Amin, the case of the petitioner will also be considered on preferential basis.;