YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenges an order dated 18.11.2006 made by the respondent No. 2. In terms of the said impugned order the representation of the petitioner dated 17.04.2006 came to be disposed of and his prayer for appointment as a Collection Amin turned down.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts which emerge from the pleadings exchanged between the parties appear to be that the petitioner was iniatially appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin in January, 1976 and continued to work as such up to 31.12.1989. During the pendency of litigation taken up by the petitioner and Seasonal Collection Amin seeking regularization of their services, the petitioner approached this Court filing Writ Petition No. 8363(S/S) of 1989, which came to be disposed of on 5.5.1999 in the following terms: "By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought for regularization/absorption of their services as they were working for more than 4 seasons continuously and were performing their services satisfactorily on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin. All the 5 petitioners were working as Seasonal Amins when they preferred the present writ petition and by means of the interim order, it was directed that the petitioner shall be continued in service if their work and conduct has been and continues to be satisfactory and if the vacancies are available. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have working as Seasonal Collection Amins in terms of the order dated 27.9.1989. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the vacancies on the post of a regular collection amins are available and they are entitled to be considered for regularization/absorption in view of a D.O. Letter dated 4.4.1987 contained in Annexure No. -8 to the writ petition. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have come on with the plea that the regularization/absorption/appointment can be made on the post of collection amins in accordance with provisions of Collection Amin Service Rules as amended upto date. In fact the opposite parties have not assailed that claim of the petitioners but only their contest is that right of the opposite parties to consider the cases of the petitioners and to take appropriate decision in terms of the relevant service rules and no blanket orders can be passed for regularization/absorption to the post of collection amins. In view of the averments made in the petition and the counter affidavit, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioners' case for regularization/absorption or appointment to the post of collection amin will be considered by the opposite parties in accordance with the provisions of Collection Amins Service Rules. No orders are made as to costs."
(3.) IT appears that the judgment rendered aforesaid was not complied with constraining the petitioner to institute contempt proceedings and it was during the pendency of the said contempt proceedings that a report with regard to the regularization of the petitioner was drawn up on 2.8.1999. The said report recorded that the recovery effected by the petitioner in the last four crop years has been upto standard fixed and that his work and character was satisfactory. This report was submitted for consideration of the District Magistrate, who in his order dated 5.1.2004 recorded that the petitioner was liable to be considered for regular appointment to the extent of 35% of the vacancies earmarked for his category on the basis of seniority and performance and subject to fulfillment of qualifications regarding age. It proceeds to record that in accordance with the said provisions, the respondents had set standard of recovery of 70% being achieved by all prospective candidates and to consider only those who were upto 45 years of age. Aggrieved by the order of Collector referred to above, the petitioner again instituted Writ Petition No. 1969(S/S) of 2004 and this petition came to be disposed of by the Court on 17.04.2006 in the following terms: "Heard Mr. S.P. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the peitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order impugned dated 5.1.2004 as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition and has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. -2, Collector, Deoria to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/absorption/appointment in pursuance of the order dated 5.5.1989 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. -8386 (S/S) of 1989. Earlier the petitioner along with others had filed Writ Petition No. 8363 (S/S) of 1989 seeking relief for their regularization on the post of Collection Amin vide interim order dated 27.9.1989, the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and on non -compliance thereof contempt petition was filed which was ultimately dismissed as the writ petition itself was finally disposed of on 5.5.1999 with the observations to consider the case of the petitioner again filed Contempt Petition against disobedience of order dated 5.5.1999, in which notice was issued to S.D.O. Salempur, Deoria for appearance who filed counter affidavit and the decision taken by the District Magistrate in pursuance of order dated 5.5.1999 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2003 vide order impugned dated 5.1.2004. In the counter affidavit, it was been averred that order dated 5.1.2004 was fully justified and well considered as the recovery work of the petitioner was much below 70% as prescribed by the Board of Revenue and consequently, his name could not be included in the seniority list prepared by the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1976. The recovery work of the petitioner during the period 1976 to 1989 has been reported to be satisfactory, but even then he has not been considered for regularization though he is now aged about 55 years. In the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 and facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that the petitioner shall be considered for appointment on the post of Collection Amin expeditiously, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(1) read with Rule 17 of the Rules along with other eligible persons keeping in view of the their seniority by the respondents. Since the government as well as the Commissioner/Secretary of the Board of Revenue vide order dated 10th September, 2000 have been kind enough to provide the relaxation in age, there is no reason to deny the petitioner for appointment on the post of Collection Amin on the ground of being over age. With these observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs." ;