SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his continuance as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1987 and has worked for more than four Faslis, he has not been appointed on regular basis as Seasonal Collection Amin. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court as reported in (1996) 3 UPLBEC 2227, Mata Deen and others v. State of U.P. and others, in support of his submissions. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner for regular appointment, if posts are available. The appropriate authority shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of the of relevant service rules and experience of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed by 30.6.2009. Till the petitioner's case is considered, he shall be allowed to continue in the service.