Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1007 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gurudeen Vishwakarma,Sudhir Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition impugns an order dated 15 October 2018 pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner for absorption on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon has been negatived.
Way back in 1996, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 29458 of 1996 which came to be disposed of with the following directions:
"The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the prayer that his representation maybe decided by the respondent no. 1 after coming into consideration 50% quota reserved for regular Collection Peons for the post of regular Collection Amin. As the petitioner is not functioning as regular Collection Peon, he is not eligible to be considered for the said post. However, as per the direction issued by this Court in the case of Bachan Lal Vs. District Magistrate 1995 (1) UPLBEC-95 and the cases reported in 1993 (1) UPLBEC-95 and the cases reported in 1993 (1) UPLBEC-729 and 1995 Education and Service Cases-184, the State of U.P. issued a notification on 8th January 1996 to the effect that persons working as Seasonal Collection Peon, while have 50% quota for filling up the post of regular collection peon. The petitioner is illegible to be considered under the said notification for the post of regular Collection Peon. Whenever the respondent fills up the vacancy, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered as per the terms and conditions of the said notification. However, the petitioner shall be allowed to work of the seasonal collection peon till the procedure of selection on regular basis is adopted if he is found otherwise eligible.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of finally."
As is evident from the order of disposal made by the learned Judge then no right of continuance was found to inhere in the petitioner. Undeterred by the disposal of the said writ petition and refusal by the Court to recognise any right in the petitioner to continue apart from merely applying as and when vacancies arose, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being Writ A No. 24169 of 1998 which was dismissed by the learned judge taking the view that it was clearly a second writ petition. All that was observed therein was that in case the petitioner have any grievance he may ventilate the same before the respondents. From the facts which stand reflected from a reading of the order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner was lastly engaged as a Collection Peon sometime in the year 1998. Although a regular recruitment exercise was initiated in June 2003, the respondents found that the petitioner was not working and had in fact not discharged any function in the last four Fasalis. The submission of learned counsel based on a perceived non compliance of the decision rendered in 1996 is only noticed to be rejected.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 LA/-