SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3. The respondent no. 4 was issued notice by registered post pursuant to this Court's order dated 13.10.2008. As per the office report the notice through registered post/AD sent on 17.10.2008 and the office report dated 13.07.2009 shows that notice has been received unserved with post office report "refused". In the circumstances the service of notice is deemed sufficient. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) has been assailed whereby the representation of petitioner against his supersession/non selection for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon has been rejected confirming selection and appointment of respondent no. 4 for such appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not been selected for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon on the ground that in the Fasali years 1410, 1411, 1412 and 1413 the percentage of recovery was 15.5, 75, 16.9 and 23.4 respectively resulting in average recovery of 32.7 though as per U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2004") the average recovery ought to have been at least 70%. The respondent no. 4 who was admittedly junior to the petitioner but his recovery having been noticed above 70% in the said Fasali years, was selected and given appointment to the post of Collection Peon. It is submitted that under Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 the criteria for selection for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon in respect to Seasonal Collection Peon is satisfactory service in the last at least four "Fasals". The explanation thereof further provides that satisfactory service means good conduct shown from beginning and in the last "four Fasals" he has cooperated for making recovery at least to the extend of 70% as prescribed by the Government. He contended that the respondents no. 1 to 3 have erred in considering the record of preceding four Fasali years instead of four Fasals. Further that the petitioner has not been found guilty or lacking coordination or cooperation in making recovery to the extent of 70% but since the recovery as a matter of fact was less than 70% for that purpose the petitioner has been superseded. He pointed that Rule 5 of Rule, 2004 required only cooperation on the part of the petitioner since the recovery as a matter of fact is the primary duty of the Collection Amin to whom a Collection Peon assist and, therefore, the relevant considerations as contemplated and provided in the Rules, 2004 have not been taken into account.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel relying on his counter affidavit, however, supported the selection of respondent no. 4 as well as the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and said that the same has been passed in accordance with law.;