Heard Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner was a Seasonal Collection Amin and he was disengaged. He approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2315/2001 in which a direction was issued on 19.1.2001 commanding the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order on his representation. Accordingly, the representation was considered and the impugned order was passed on 18.9.2001 rejecting the request of the petitioner for his re-engagement as Seasonal Collection Amin. The challenge has been raised to the said order on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence on record and that the impugned order incorrectly records the findings with regard to temporary embezzlement. Shri Mishra submits that it was on account of the vindictive attitude of the local Tehsildar that the petitioner's collection was projected as low whereas the other Seasonal Collection Amins who had reportedly lesser collections than the target fixed, were re- engaged.
The petition has been countered by the respondent and the affidavit filed in support of the same narrates that not only was the petitioner guilty of temporary embezzlement but he was also totally inefficient, as he never achieved the target that was fixed for him and his recovery was miserably low. Accordingly, it was decided not to re-engage the petitioner. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the same.
Shri Mishra, Advocate contends that the facts stated in the counter affidavit are against the record and as per the information received, the petitioner has given adequate recovery to the respondents.
Learned Standing Counsel contends that paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit records details about the in efficient services of the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner was rightly disengaged. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit has not been effectively replied to and the facts stated therein could not be successful disputed in the rejoinder affidavit. It is evident from the said facts that the petitioner had been unable to discharge the duties of the post satisfactorily and efficiently and, therefore, he was disengaged. The other submission by Shri Mishra, Advocate that other Seasonal Collection Amins who had lower recovery have been re-engaged does not appeal to reason as there cannot be any parity in illegality. Article 14 does not apply conversely. Article 14 requires equal treatment under the laws. The petitioner continued to remain insufficient and, therefore, the Court cannot put a seal on the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Puspendra