RAM BHAJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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,

(3.) 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: -