- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel agree that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 29.1.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 3467 of 2015 (Dharmendra Kumar Nigam and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).
(3.) The said judgement dated 29.1.2015 is quoted hereinunder:- "The petitioners are Seasonal Collection Amins. They have preferred this writ petition for the following relief:- "i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith consider case of the petitioners in terms of Manak and Seniority list of 2012 for their regularization and accord them all consequential service benefits and privileges of the said post of Collection Amins." The petitioner no.1 was appointed in the year 1996 and petitioner no.2 was appointed on 1995. Under U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules,1974 there is provision of 35% post to be reserved for the appointment of Seasonal Collection Amins. It is stated that there are total 321 posts of Collections Amins in the district and out of the same 146 posts are lying vacant and after calculating 35% of 146 posts for seasonal collection Amins, it would come to 51 posts and out these 51 posts only 11 posts have been filled up and still 40 posts are lying vacant which also include 12 posts of scheduled caste category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a communication from the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to all the District Magistrates in the State dated 29.9.2014 for appointment of Seasonal Collection Amins in terms of U.P.Collection Amins Service Rules,1974, within a month. It is stated that in compliance of the said communciation the process for the selection of Amins is likely to be initiated. For the redressal of their grievance petitioners have made a representation dated 5.4.2014 to the District Magistrate concerned. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served keeping this writ petition pending. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel a direction is issued upon the third respondent to consider the cause of the petitioners and pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order before the third respondent. In the event, any such representation is made within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and order, writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed its opinion on merit of the case, the third respondent shall pass order independently in accordance with law.";