RAM BHAJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Sahi, J. The petitioners, who were seasonal collection Amins, have challenged the order dated 30-6-2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and have prayed for quashing of the same with a further direction to the said respondent to appoint the petitioners against the permanent posts of regular collection Amins in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. The challenge is on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of Rule 1974 as amended in the year 1992 referred to herein above and that there is no basis or evidence to show that the petitioners were provided sufficient work so as to satisfy the position laid down under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. It has further been urged that the actions of the respondent are arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the persons junior to the petitioners have been offered appointment as collection amins whereas the petitioners have been illegally left out.

(2.) IT is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner did function as seasonal collection amins and the Court has proceeded to examine the facts on the basis of Rules 1974, referred to herein above. Rule 5 provides that 35% of the vacancies of permanent collection amin shall be filled up by selection from amongst such seasonal collection amin: (a) Who have worked satisfactorily for at least four Fasalis. (b) Whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years: Provided also that if suitable candidates are not available, remaining vacancies shall be filled by general candidates through direct recruitment. Explanation.- Satisfactory work shall mean atleast seventy percent realisation as per prescribed standard doing the last four Fasals including good conduct throughout. Rule 6 provides for reservation. This rule has also to be kept in mind as petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are of the scheduled caste category and the petitioner No. 2 is of the backward category. The procedure is provided under Rule 17-A of the aforesaid rules, quoted herein below: "17-A. A procedure for selection of Seasonal Collection Amins.- The Collector shall prepare a list of Seasonal Collection Amins who are eligible for selection under the first proviso of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and select from amongst them, the required number of candidates on the basis of seniority or the length of their service on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin in the district subject to satisfactory work. " The petitioners filed this writ petition with the allegation that they satisfied the test of the word satisfactory work as defined in the explanation to Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, quoted herein below: Explanation.- Satisfactory work shall mean atleast seventy percent realisation as per prescribed standard during the last four Fasals including good conduct throughout. "

(3.) THE petitioners in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 2-3-2005 have categorically stated in paragraph 10 that there was absolutely no evidence available with the respondents to show that the petitioners were allocated 40% of demand of the regular collection amin with whom they were attached and such calculation made by the respondents, as suggested in their affidavits, is founded on no basis. THE respondents in their affidavits have asserted that petitioner No. 1, Ram Bhajan, has only 55% recovery in aggregate to his credit, petitioner No. 2, Nakdu Ram, has only 39. 2% of the recovery to his credit and petitioner No. 3, Munna Lal, had 107% aggregate of recovery to his credit. THE breakup has been given in the counter-affidavit ask well as in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondents.