- (1.) By this petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to appoint him as regular Collection Amin. Admittedly, he was appointed as seasonal Collection Amin. After completion of more than seven years of service as seasonal Collection Amin, petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities for regularization of his service as Collection Amin under the U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974.
(2.) The seasonal Collection Amin is not entitled for regularization as no such statutory provision has been shown to this Court. On the contrary, under Rule 5 of U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1974")there is a quota prescribed for seasonal Collection Amins to be considered for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amins. There is neither any pleading nor any material placed on record to show that the vacancy of Collection Amins in the quota of seasonal Collection Amin was available or that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration and fulfilled eligibility conditions but was not considered for substantive appointment and a person junior to him has been so considered and appointed, thereby discriminating the petitioner. The pleadings in this regard are lacking, rendering it difficult for this court to provide any relief to the petitioner. Moreover, it is said that juniors to the petitioner have been appointed but neither their appointment is under challenge nor it is stated that petitioner has not been considered, though he was eligible and entitled to such consideration. The mere fact that the petitioner has worked for certain period as seasonal Collection Amin does not entitle him to claim regularization, as no right has been conferred upon him under any statute and none has been shown to this Court, despite repeated query from the learned counsel. Moreover, in absence of any statutory right a writ of mandamus does not lie.
(3.) It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents, who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something, have failed to do so.;