STATE OF U P Vs. PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04 October 2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has quashed the decision, which was taken in a meeting of a Selection Committee dated 15 December 2001 for considering the regularization of the services of the respondent as a Collection Amin against a 35% quota prescribed for regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin from amongst the Seasonal Collection Amins under the U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974'). The learned Single Judge has directed consideration afresh. Hence, the State is in appeal.

(2.) The respondent worked as a Seasonal Collection Amin since the year 1989 from time to time. He claimed regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin under the Rules, 1974. The State Government has regular posts of Collection Amins and also engages Seasonal Collection Amins. The Seasonal Collection Amins are required to carry out the work of collection of revenue during the Rabi and Khareef crops. A provision was introduced in the Rules,1974 for regularization of Seasonal Collection Amins as Collection Amins against 35% of vacancies. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, which provides for regularization, is in the following terms:-

(3.) Earlier the respondent had filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.3280 (S/S) of 2001) since his claim for regularization had not been considered. By a judgment and order dated 12 July 2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the claim of the respondent for regularization shall be considered in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and the Rules against 35% of the total vacancies. Since in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 12 July 2001 no intimation was furnished to the respondent, he initiated contempt proceedings before this Court. In the contempt proceedings, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 12 October 2009 in which there was a disclosure that the claim of the respondent for regularization had been considered and rejected by the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 15 December 2001. Thereupon, the respondent instituted another petition challenging the decision of the Selection Committee in 2009. The only ground on which the Selection Committee rejected the claim of the respondent was that he was not working as a Seasonal Collection Amin on the date on which the claim was considered (the exact words used by the Selection Committee being). When the petition was filed before the learned Single Judge, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State in which, besides the ground which weighed with the Selection Committee, an additional ground was sought to be taken, namely, that the performance of the respondent was not commensurate with the requirement spelt out in the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974.