R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Naib Tahsildar in 1953 and in 1958 he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar. Next promotion for Tahsildar is to the post of Deputy Collector in the Cadre of Provinces Civil Service (Executive Branch). The petitioner was promoted as officiating Deputy Collector and his appointment was notified in the Gazette dated 23-3-1962. Thereafter he continued to work as officiating Deputy Collector from year to year and was confirmed as Deputy Collector with effect from 4-1-1975. However, vide G.O. dated 5-10-1885, he was allotted the seniority of the recruitment year 1970 instead of 1961. The representation filed by the petitioner against allotment of the seniority did not yield any result. He, therefore, challenged the above order of the Government allotting him the Seniority by means of a writ petition before this court. This writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated October 10, 1991 relevant extract from which is reproduced below:- "In view of the above discussion, I deem it necessary to direct the State Government to entertain a representation from the petitioner if it is filed within three weeks from today and to decide the same by a speaking order and assign such year of recruitment to the petitioner as may be due to him in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. If on such determination the petitioner is entitled to be assigned any earlier year of recruitment than the one assigned to him by the Government. Order dated 5-10-1995, he shall be given all consequential poet retrial benefits. The State Government shall decide the petitioner's representation within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with the representation."
(2.) Petitioner in pursuance of the above judgment submitted a representation which has been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 18th January, 1982. Being aggrieved by it the petitioner has failed this writ petition.
(3.) While deciding the earlier writ petition of the petitioner this Court held that as the quota rule in the matter of appointment to the post of Deputy Director has broken down and the petitioner is entitled to the seniority of the year 1961, if it is proved that his appointment was made after following the procedure prescribed by the United Provinces Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rule, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Relevant extract of the said judgment of this Court is reproduced below: "While on the admitted facts it is proved that the quota rule was not followed continuously for a number of years and it had virtually broken down and the appointments were made to the cadre by way of promotion in excess of the quota, may be because of non-availability of direct recruits in time or because of the meeting of the Selection Committee could not be held due to one reason or the other, I find that there is no pleading in the writ petition or supplementary affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector on officiating basis was made by the Government notification dated 23-3-1962 after following the procedure prescribed by 1941 Rules. Proposition (E) as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 44 of its judgment in Direct Recruits case (supra) may be attracted and the petitioner may be entitled to count his officiating service in the cadre towards his seniority by assigning him 1961 as his year of recruitment only if it is proved that his appointment vide notification dated 23-3-1962 was made after following the procedure prescribed by 1941 Rules.";