AJRAM MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were selected for appointment as Amins by an order of the SDM dated 29-4-1979. THE SDM made the selection on the basis of the procedure laid down in the Rules namely 'U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974.' This came to the notice of the Government in 1983 when some question was asked in the Legislative Assembly by an Hon'ble Member. Actually the 1974 Rules were proposed to be amended in order to provide for absorption of Amins of the Agriculture Department, on the posts of Collection Amins in the Revenue Department. Because of this proposal for amendment in the Rules the Government issued orders on 9-6-1978 placing an embargo on making any further selections for appointment to the post of Collection Amins. THE order of the SDM dated 24-9-79 was thus in violation of this Government Order of 9-6-1978. THE Government accordingly directed the District Magistrate to cancel the appointments and to take action against the SDM for violation of Government orders in pursuance of these directions contained in Annexure no. 2. THE services of the petitioners have been terminated by orders Annexures no. 3 to 6. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the government order dated 9-6-1978 was itself illegal inasmuch as the Government could not by an executive order over-rule or suspend the statutory Rules. In our opinion the government order dated 9-6-1978 did not have the effect of suspending or over-ruling the statutory Rules. What the Government directed its subordinate authority was that no further selection should be made under the Rules because posts have to be left vacant for absorption of Amins of the Agriculture Department which could be done only after amendment of 1974 Rules which was under contemplation. Such an anticipatory action can always be taken by the Government in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. It does not involve suspension or supersession of the Rules but only involves keeping the selections and appointments in abeyance in order to keep the posts vacant for being filled after the contemplated amendment of the Rules. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Government order dated 9-6-1978. Accordingly the SDM was bound by the Government order. As he acted in violation of the same the selections and appointments made by him were illegal and as such the result of selection has rightly been cancelled. ' THE petition has, thus, no merit.

(2.) HOWEVER, it appears that the petitioners had been working as seasonal Collection Amins before they were appointed as aforesaid in 4976. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that the Rules of 1974 have still not been amended by the Government. If so, there should be no impediment to the petitioners being allowed to work again as seasonal Collection amins. They can also be considered for appointment under ad interim arrangement against the posts of regular Amins pending amendment of the Rules and regular selection under the amended Rules. For this purpose they may represent to the authorities.