RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin and worked in 13 Faslis upto 30.9.1998. In the year 1995, he preferred a writ petition bearing No. 3613 (SS) of 1995 praying for regularization of his services. By means of the order dated 5.10.2005, this Court directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In compliance of this Court's Order, the opposite party No.3 has passed an order on 1.9.2006 to this effect that a District Level Committee shall be formed and then his claim for regularization shall be considered, however, no action has been taken for regularization of his services. In the month of November, 2006, seniority list of Collection Amins in District Unnao has been prepared in which the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 27, which has been approved by the District Magistrate, Unnao. In the final seniority list prepared for District Unnao of Collection Amins, the name of the petitioner depicts at Sl. No. 51, which too was approved by the District Magistrate. The petitioner obtained information in respect of vacancies on 7.4.2007 under Right to Information Act and the authority concerned has informed the petitioner that forty vacancies of Collection Amins are available in district Unnao. By means of the order dated 2.2.2009, the District Magistrate, Unnao rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order in the instant writ petition on the grounds that (a) satisfactory services should be judged keeping in view the assistance and cooperation extended by the Collection Amin; (b) No reason or instance given in the impugned order to indicate that the petitioner failed to provide assistance during the recovery. (c) No complaint against the petitioner for deficiency or shortfall in recovery attributable to the petitioner and (d) the impugned order reflects patent non-application of mind and is in violation of law laid down by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the question involved in the writ petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ganga Charan Versus State of U.P. and others [2008 (26) LCD 1542]. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of Ganga Charan (supra).