DINESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anirudh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dtd. 31/8/2020, passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich and for issuance of a direction to the District Magistrate, Bahraich, to appoint the petitioner to the post of Regular Collection Amin in Tehsil Sadar, District Bahraich, along with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The facts that have emerged from the pleadings in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 25/5/1997 in Tehsil Bahraich of District Bahraich and he worked till 31/3/2000. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.24 on the information list prepared in compliance of letter no.298/??.??.?. ??? ..??o dtd. 7/9/2001 issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Bahraich, in which the petitioner has been shown appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Bahraich of District Bahraich on 27/5/1997 and has worked for four fasli years, namely, 1405 (Kharif), 1406 (Kharif), 1406 (Rabi) and 1407 (Kharif) and has worked overall 320 days with percentage of recovery 53%, 61%, 58% and 50% respectively.