1. Heard Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed against order dated 16.09.2009 whereby petitioner's claim for regularization on the post of regular Collection Amin under the Scheduled Caste quota has been rejected. Further prayer for direction to opposite parties to regularize services of petitioner on the post of Collection Amin has also been made.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 16.05.1983 under the Scheduled Castes Quota in Tehsil, Sadar District Sultanpur and continued working as such. It has been submitted that thereafter petitioner despite being eligible for regularization in terms of U.P. Collections Amins Service Rules 1974, was not considered for regularization leading to filing of Writ Petition No.4038 (SS) of 2009, which was disposed of by means of order dated 08.07.2009 directing opposite parties to consider the case of petitioner for regular appointment, if posts were available in the light of relevant service rules and experience of petitioner. In pursuance of the said directions impugned order has been passed declining petitioner's case for regularization primarily on the ground that he has not worked for four Faslies and that even otherwise his recovery target was less than 70 %. Since the aforesaid conditions are required in terms of Service Rules 1974, which petitioner did not fulfill therefore his case was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that so far as the ground of rejection for petitioner not having work for four Faslies is concerned it is quite evident from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 03.09.2015 that opposite parties themselves have admitted that petitioner had worked for four Faslies but his recovery was only 60.14% and therefore he was not within the zone of eligibility. Learned counsel for petitioner has also indicated in paragraph no.17 of the counter affidavit whereby it has been admitted that petitioner had worked as Seasonal Collection Amin for 1080 days but the recovery was found unsatisfactory. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that it has been admitted by opposite parties the petitioner worked for four Faslies and therefore the aforesaid condition stood satisfied.
5. With regard to second ground of rejection that recovery effected by petitioner in four Faslies was less than 70% and therefore was not inconsonance with Rules 5 of the Service Rules 1974 which prescribed at least 70% realization during last four Faslies including good conduct throughout, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sri Surendra Singh, Special Appeal No.518 of 2000 in which the Division Bench of this Court relying upon other judgments rendered by this Court has approved the proposition that mere non achieving of target for collection bereft of other relevant facts cannot be a criteria for achieving sufficiency for the purpose of regularization.
6. In view thereof, learned counsel for petitioner submits that low recovery percentage also is not a good ground for rejection of petitioner's case for regularization.
7. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties however on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that the conditions for regularization of Seasonal Collection Amins prescribed by Service Rules 1974 are mandatory in nature and have to be kept in mind while considering the case of a Seasonal Collection Amin for the purposes of regularization. It has been submitted that once concerned authority has recorded a finding that petitioner did not work for four Faslies and did not also achieve the target of 70% realization then the claim for regularization of petitioner was rightly rejected and does not warrant any interference.
8. Upon consideration of submission raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, it is clear that the opposite parties themselves in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit and in paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit have clearly admitted the fact that petitioner had worked as Seasonal Collection Amin for 1080 days and for last four Faslies in which recovery percentage was 60.14% as such it can be seen that counter affidavit filed by opposite parties themselves does not support the findings recorded in the impugned order that petitioner had not worked for four Faslies. Such contradictory stand by opposite parties does not inspire confidence. In view of admission by opposite parties, it is clear that petitioner had indeed worked for four Faslies and therefore the first ground for rejection of petitioner's claim for regularization is unsustainable.
9. So far as, second ground for rejection is concerned that petitioner did not achieve the target of 70% recovery as prescribed in Rules 1974, a perusal of judgment of Division Bench in Sri Suresh Singh (supra) clearly indicates that the said ground has also been rejected. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is as follows:
"While considering the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amin as per the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules 1974, in view of the observation made hereinabove the appellants may also take into consideration that mere non-achieving of target for collection, bereft of other relevant facts can not be the criterion for achieving efficiency for the purpose of regularization as observed by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana V. Collector, Azamgarh and others, 2001 (1) ESC 340 and Brijesh Kumar Vs. Collector/District Magistrate Manpuri and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2544, relevant portion of para 8 of the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (Supra) reads as under:-
"This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the petitioner was low for reason other than this own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering the efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons like-orders from Court, the total extent of recovery to be made in one's area and/or whether Government itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency."
10. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and the ratio laid down clearly indicates that mere non-achieving of target for collection cannot be a criteria to be taken into account for purpose of regularization. As such the second ground taken in the impugned order for non suiting the petitioner also fails. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, petitioner has specifically indicated that persons junior to him such as Phool Chand, Madan Chand and Magaru Ram have been given regular appointment ignoring the claim of petitioner. It is seen that in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, the said averments have not been denied although it has been stated that petitioner after being appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in 1983 has been discharging his duties with broken period.
11. In view of aforesaid facts, it is evident that legitimate claim of petitioner for regularization in services was wrongly rejected.
12. Considering the factors indicated hereinabove, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 16.09.2009. Further writ in the nature of madamus is issued commanding opposite party no.2, i.e. Collector, District Sultanpur to reconsider the case of petitioner for regularization in service in view of observations made hereinabove and to accord the said benefit with effect from the date when persons junior to him have been regularized in service. The decision with regard to the same shall be taken by speaking and reasoned order within a period six weeks from the date a copy of this order shall be produced before the said authority.
13. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Subodh/-