1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners' Writ Petition No.5693 (S/S) of 2019 was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2019 by the writ-Court as under:-
".....................
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the similar circumstances this Court has passed the order dated 13.02.2019 in the Writ Petition No. 1339 (S/S) of 2019 (Talukdar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) for considering the regularization of the petitioners on the post of Collection Amine under the Rules of 1974.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties does not dispute this fact.
The order dated 13.02.2019 passed in the Writ Petition No. 1339 (S/S) of 2019 (Talukdar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is quoted below:-
"Short rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri S.P. Singh "Somvanshi", learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Verma, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite parties are not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization under the U.P. Collection Amine Service Rules as amended time to time (in short Rules of 1974).
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of pleadings on record, is that under the Rules of 1974 the maximum age prescribed for considering the case of the concerned employee for regularization is 45 years and the petitioner, who is entitled for regularization under the Rules of 1974, would cross the maximum age prescribed under the Rules within few months and, thereafter, the Authorities would reject the claim only on the basis of age bar provided under the Rules. It has also been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is serving the Department since September, 2000 and he is entitled to regularization under the Rules of 1974. In support of the claim for regularization, the counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the seniority list prepared for the District Pratapgarh for the year 2018-19 wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.52. The said document is prepared and signed by the District Authorities, District Pratapgarh and in the same, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has not cross the age of 45 years. The details of recovery in the last four fasly years are also mentioned in the seniority list.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the contents of the counter affidavit, submits that due to the pendency of the other writ petition on the subject and contempt petition, the process of regularization has not been initiated. On query being made, with respect to the subject matter of the pending writ petitions, the counsel for the State submitted that the same is related to relaxation in upper age prescribed under the Rules of 1974.
In response to the submission of counsel for the State, the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in other districts, despite pendency of writ petitions on the subject of age relaxation, the process of regularization has been carried out and eligible persons have been regularized. He brought to the notice of the Court the order dated 23.03.2018 annexed as annexure No.8 to the writ petition. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that after crossing the age prescribed under the Rules of 1974, particularly Rule 5, the Authorities would reject his claim for regularization only on account of crossing of age prescribed.
Considering the entirety of the case, the Opposite Party No. 4 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amine under the Rules of 1974 as amended from time to time by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months and the case of the similarly situated persons be also considered so that they may not be compelled to approach this Court.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.02.2019 passed in the Writ Petition No. 1339 (S/S) of 2019 (Talukdar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and accordingly, the same benefit would be extended by the opposite party No. 4 to the petitioners of the present writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of."
.
3. Pursuant to issuance of contempt notice, an affidavit of compliance of Mr. Markandey Shahi, District Magistrate, Pratapgarh has been tendered today in the Court, which is taken on record.
Along with the aforesaid compliance affidavit, copy of order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, has been annexed as Annexure A-1.
Paragraph-5 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit reads as under:-
"5. That the deponent most humbly and respectfully submits that in compliance of the Order dated: 28.02.2019, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.5693 (S/S) of 2019 (Jyoti Prakash Srivastava And 4 Ors. Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors.) the deponent has decided the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 15.07.2019 whereby the Petitioner has not been regularized because no post is vacant in the 35% reservation and in case of vacancy in future the appointment of the Petition will be considered on the basis of eligibility. The true copy of order dated 15.07.2019 is marked as Annexure No.A-1 to this affidavit."
4. In view of the above, nothing survives in this contempt petition, which is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh in the case of his regularization, it would be open to him to challenge the same, in accordance with law, before the competent Court/authority, if he is so advised.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.] Order Date :- 29.8.2019 MVS/-