Sudhir Agarwal, J - (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Anoop Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6. Notices were issued to respondent No. 5 also by registered post A.D. but he has not put in appearance. The pleadings are complete. As requested by the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage.
(2.) The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23rd October, 2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Etah whereby the representation of the petitioners claiming substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon has been denied. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under:
(3.) The petitioner No. 1 Kamaruddin is a member of Other Backward Class(hereinafter referred to as the, 'OBC'). He was engaged as a Seasonal Collection Peon on 17th February, 1998 in Tehsil Jalesar District Etah. Petitioner No. 2 Sri Sanjiv Kumar (a general candidate) was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 1st November, 1997 and he was also posted in Tehsil Jalesar, District Etah. Recruitment and appointment on the post of Collection Peon is now governed by "The U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004" (hereinafter referred to as "2004 Rules") which came into force on 17.12.2004. A seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peon was prepared on 9th February, 2006 wherein the petitioner No. 1 was shown at Serial No. 21 and the petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 169 while the respondent No. 5 and 6 were placed at Serial No. 65 and 222. It is said that a Selection Committee was constituted and persons junior to the petitioners i.e. respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed as Collection Peon on substantive basis. The petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36650/06 (Kamruddin and others v. State of UP. and others) which was finally disposed of on 14th July, 2006 directing the petitioners to make representation before the District Magistrate concerned who was directed to decide the same within three months.;