U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) These three connected writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner asserting right to the post of Collection Naib Fahsi'dar, claiming benefit of Rule 39 (3) of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tahsildar) Rules, 1944 viz, exemption challenging his reversion to his substantive post of Collection Amin. The petitioner who was only Junior High School was appointed as Collection Amin in 1953 and was confirmed as such with effect from 1-4-60. He was posted as Collection Naib Tahsildar number of times though for about twelve years viz , from 1963 to l97o he did not get any opportunity to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The period during which the petitioner was posted as Collection Naib Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar by the District Magistrate are as follows : JUDGEMENT_84_LAWS(ALL)1_1985.html
(2.) The petitioners assertion that it is because of seniority and merits that he was appointed as Collection Naib Tahsildar, have not been denied though the averment that he was appointed as 'officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar has been denied. A perusal of the dates during which the petitioner was appointed as Collection Naib Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar indicates season or period in a year. It may have been earlier in newly created post for a particular period or in place of some one for post already created for any duration. As the petitioner was working as Collection Naib Tahsildar he claimed benefit of Rule 39 (3) of the Service Rules and represented his case to the Board of Revenue as well as State Government. On the representation as referred to above the Secretary Board of Revenue made an enqiury from the Collection who reported that the petitioner was working as Officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar on 14-11-1982 and his record of service was excellent and he named few other Naib Tahsildars who according to him ware junior to the petitioner. The Revenue Secretary endorsed the same to the petitioner and the Revenue Minister approved it on 5-7-1981 and no that after consulting Public Service Commission he may be exempted from educational qualification. The State Government viewed that non-regularisation of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar was not just the special Secretary to the Government, vide letter dated 1-8-1981 communicated this to the Secretary Public Service Commission asking him for regularisation of petitioner giving him benefit of Rule 39 (3) and for approved of it by the Public Service Commission without delay and thereafter informing the Government of the same. In the said letter reference to the cases of other officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar who were given benefit of Rule 39 (3) on the ground that they were officiating as Collection Naib Tahsildars on 14-11-1962 and whose services were regularised by Government in consultation with Commission was made Reference to the filing of writ petition by those who were not given benefit of Rule 39 (3) in which they were held entitled to it and were consequently given benefit of said rule was also made. Alongwith the letter the petitioners character roll was also seen Again by letter dated 15-10-1981 the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department asked the Board of Revenue to issue necessary orders to the Collector, Shah-jahanpur for promotion of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar in local arrangement as the matter for his regularisation was pending consideration In the said letter it was also mentioned that the G O. dated 16-11-1979 by which the petitioners request for exemption was rejected was being cancelled. This, it seems, was done in view of exemption granted to the petitioner at the Ministers level referred to above. In pursuance of the same. Collector Shahjahanpur, promoted the petitioner again to the post of Naib Tahsildar and ordered for reversion of one Mathura Prasad whose name found place at the bottom in the seniority list of Collection Amins. The petitioner took over charge in pursuance of appointment letter dated 16-11-1981 which led the said Mathura Prasad to file a writ petition in which an interim order directing the State Government and the Collector to continue to pay him the salary for the post in which he was working As a result of this order, an order dated 17-4-1982 reverting the petitioner was passed which led him to file writ petition No. 1858 of 1982 which was admitted and an interim order staying the operation of the said reversion order was passed. Subsequently, two writ petitions by other Collection Amins were filed and all the petitioners including one filed earlier by one Uttam Kumar wes directed to be listed together. An order directing continuance of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar till next listing was passed and it was left open to the authorities to revert the junior most in order to accommodate the petitioner. On the basis of interim orders confirmed subsequently the petitioner vide order dated 25-11-1983 was reverted to the post of Collection Amin. This led the petitioner to file writ petition No. 6869 of 1983 claiming himself to be senior most amongst the Amins An interim order staying the operation of the said order was passed on 26-12-1983 and it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to draw his salary as Naib Tahsildar. In the said writ petition the petitioner gave the names of the Collection Amins who were given benefit of Rule 39 (3) and of the writ petition as a result of which few more got benefit of the said rule resulting in similar benefit to few more Collection Amins. One Uttam Kumar who had earlier filed a writ petition as a result of rearrangement was reverted which led him to file another writ petition. In the said writ petition a reference to confidential letter of the Government mentioning Rule 39 (3) was considered therein that the petitioners matter regarding benefit of Rule 39 (3) was considered by State Government and was rejected was made. In Uttam Kumars writ petition an order for maintaining status quo was passed. The petitioner therefore,filed the third writ petition viz , writ petition No. 491 of 1973 challenging his case for regularisation which was passed behind his back without giving him any opportunity of hearing which was dismissed as not pressed. It writ petition No. 124 of 1984 filed by Uttam Kumar this Court passed an order directing the authorities to pass proper order for making officiating and temporary appointments in accordance with Rule 28 read with Rules 5,7 and 17 of the Service Rules, and the interim orders passed in all the pending petitions thus stood modified The Collector, Shahjahanpur thereafter passed a detailed order and held that petitioner was not eligible for promotion under Rule 28 as he did not fulfil the requisite educational qualifications and condition for promotion as officiating and temporary Naib Tahsildar By order dated 1-10-1984 the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the post of Collection Amin whereafter he filed writ petition No. 4919 of 1984. The petitioner in this petition has claimed benefit of Rule 39 (3) which was extended to various Amin as a result of writ petition filed by them or otherwise by the Government also without there being any order in a favour of such persons by any court of law,
(3.) From the facts stated by the parties, the position which emerges out is that the State Government sanctioned a scheme of integration for collection of various Government dues like land revenue, taqavi etc. and a circular in this behalf was issued by the Land Reforms Commissioner in which a provision for sanction of extra staff was also made. In the exigencies of the situation the District Officers were asked to make necessary appointments. These appointments could have been made only for a particular season. Although the works. Seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar, it seems was used in the said circular or finds place in the statutory rules these appointees ware not placed within the purview of Public Service Commission. These Collection Naib Tahsildars were appointed also from amongst the Collection Amins and Supervisor Kanoongos. Those who were appointed or promoted from the Collection Amins and Supervisor Kanoongos, were designated as unapproved Collection Naib Tahsildar Cases of such Collection Naib Tahsildars we referred to the Public Service Commission for approval and it is said that they were subsequently approved and were later on promoted, and the names of such persons have been mentioned by the petitioner Under G O. No. 2805 (VI) 1D-1263-D/59 dated November 15, 1962 the State Government decided to merge the cadre of Revenue Naib Tahsildars and Collection Naib Tahsildar with effect from 15-11-62. After merger of these cadre new Rule 39 was added to the Naib Tahsildars Rules for regularisation of the cases of temporary and permanent Collection Naib Tahsildars and Rule 39 (3) for regulation of those who were working as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the officiating capacity or for temporary post. According to the petitioner although similar cases of Chandrama Prasad, Kailash Misra, Rajmani Peuday, Nazim Ali etc. for regularisation to the post of Naib Tahsildar were referred to the Public Services Commission but his case even though he too was an unapproved Naib Tahsildar was not referred, may it be under some mistake. Some unapproved Collection Naib Tahsildars who were not allowed benefit of Rule 39 (3) and were reverted to their substantive post of Collection Amin challenged their reversion order which was ultimately allowed and they were allowed to continue on the post of Naib Tahsildar and all of them are still continuing such. The petitioner has given details of such writ petitions. On the behalf of the State so far as these persons are concerned, it has been placed that these persons were working as Collection Naib Tahsildar in officiating or temporary capacity still the petitioner was only working as seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar on 14-11-1962. No document whatsoever on behalf of the State has been placed on the record which may indicate that any designation like seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar was provided for in any Government Order or it was given to anyone. Under Rules also though there is reference to Nazul Naib Tahsildar, there is no reference to Collection Naib Tahsildar, which indicates that it is Naib Tahsildar (Collection). Rule 39 (3) which was subsequently added by the amending Act, reads as follows : "39. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules - (1) all the permanent and temporary posts of Collection Naib Tahsildar existing as on November 14, 1962, shall, with effect from November 15, 1962, be deemed to have been redesignated as 'Naib Tahsildar and added to the permanent and temporary cadres respectively of the service (2) All persons who were serving as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the State on No vernier 14, 1962, in a substantive capacity, shall be deemed to have been appointed as members of the Service, as defined in clause (g) of Rule 3 ; (3) persons who were serving as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the State on November 14, 1962 in an officiating capacity or in temporary posts, shall be deemed to have been as Naib Tahsildars in officiating or temporary with the rules and shall be eligible for appointment as members of the service, in consultation with the Commission ; and (4) The Governor may direct that the said rules or any individual rule thereof shall not apply with such modification as he may specify, to the persons mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) in respect of their recruitment on appointment to the service and other conditions of service relating thereto.";