DILIP VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. O.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by Collector, Kheeri whereby the petitioner's case of regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin has been rejected on the ground that he could not achieve the target i.e. 70% for realization of revenue.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order impugned shows that since out of target fixed for recovery upon the petitioner some of the amounts were deposited to the bank directly and those have not been included in the target achieved by the petitioner in realization of revenue and therefore his recovery has been found less than 70%. The petitioner's case has been examined by this Court lastly in Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2007 (SS) and this Court considered the matter of petitioner's counter parts namely Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Rupesh Kumar and issued direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case with the observation that: - "It has been accepted by the respondents that if direct bank deposit included with cash deposit made by the petitioner is clubbed then it exceeds 70%".