KANT TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that he is working as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1.6.1988. His working has been intermittent on account of certain artificial break which has been created by the respondents. However, the work and conduct of the petitioner have always been appreciated. When a junior to the petitioner was regularized as Collection Amin and the case of the petitioner was not considered and the petitioner also meeting the requirement as specified under the rules for being regularized, he preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No.413 of 2009 In re: Sri Kant Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.1.2009, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In pursuance thereof, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner by means of the order dated 16.3.2009 primarily on two grounds- (a) that the recovery made by the petitioner is below the criteria of 70% as envisaged in U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules 1985 as amended in the year 2004 and (b) that no incumbent junior to the petitioner has been given regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin. The rejection order dated 16.3.2009 compelled the petitioner to file a second writ petition namely Writ Petition No. 5986 (SS) of 2009 before the court. This Court, after considering both the grounds of rejection negated the same on the ground that so far as 70% recovery is concerned, taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.518 of 2000 In re: State of U.P. and others vs. Sri Surendra Singh decided on 15.9.2009, mere non achieving of target for collection, bereft of other relevant facts, cannot be a criterion for achieving efficiency for the purpose of regularization. The Court also considered that the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 16.3.2009 had not considered the fact that at the relevant time the district was hit by drought. So far as the other ground of no incumbent junior to the petitioner having been given regular appointment , this Court specifically referred to paragraph 24 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.11.2012 filed by the Tahsildar Sadar, Sultanpur wherein it had been admitted by the respondents that an incumbent at Serial No.156 of the seniority list, namely, Dev Narayan Upadhyaya has been given regular appointment w.e.f 01.03.2006 while the name of the petitioner was at Serial No.125 of the said seniority list. Thus the Court vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2014 had set-aside the order of rejection dated 16.3.2009 and directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to consider the matter of the petitioner's appointment as regular Collection Amin in view of the observations made in the said judgment and also in the case of Surendra Singh (supra) within three months. Copy of judgment and order dated 21.8.2014 is annexure 4 of petition.