JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2, Collector, Kanpur Dehat, to absorb him on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins in view of the order dated 26.12.1996. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.
2. The brief resume of the facts necessary for Just decision of the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was duly selected by the Selection Committee on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1995 decided on 3.4.1995 whereby the Collector, Kanpur Dehat, was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for his absorption on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins strictly adhering to the provisions contained in U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, as amended by Vth Amendment which came into force on 23.10.1992.
A copy of the decision rendered by learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition is filed and marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. It is further revealed from the averments made in the writ petition that in pursuance of the aforesaid decision rendered by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1995 decided on 3rd April, 1995, the petitioner made a representation to the Collector, Kanpur Dehat, who mechanically with closed mind on the basis of a manipulated seniority list rejected the representation of the petitioner holding that under amended U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, made enforceable from 23.10.1992, absorption on the post of Collection Amin in District, Kanpur Dehat, within 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins is to be made from the seniors to the petitioner who are awaiting their regularisation. It is borne out from rejection order passed by the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, dated 23.11.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that on the aforesaid date, the petitioner had already completed 4 years' service as Seasonal Collection Amin and was below 45 years in age. His performance as Seasonal Collection Amin was unblemished during his service. Thus, he was found eligible to be regularised on the post of Collection Amin within 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins, but his representation was rejected on the basis of incorrect seniority list alleged to have been prepared by Upper Ziladhikari (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat, which was neither signed nor approved. No objections were invited from the affected persons against the aforesaid seniority list purported to have been prepared by Upper Ziladhikari (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat. A copy of the order dated 23.11.1995 passed by Collector, Kanpur Dehat, rejecting representation of the petitioner is filed and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 23.11.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, on the ground, inter alia, that he is senior most Collection Amin and fully eligible to be absorbed within 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins. It is alleged in his representation before Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, that petitioner is denied regularisation on the post of Collection Amin on the ground of seniority whereas juniors to him, namely, Sri Parmal Singh, Sri Jagdamba Prasad Yadav and Sri Zahir Ahmad had already been regularised on the post of Collection Amins. It is further averred that his character roll remained unblemished throughout his service and there was no cause of complaint against him either by public or by his superior officers. He challenged the correctness of the seniority list prepared by Upper Ziladhikari (Finance and Revenue) Kanpur Dehat, wherein his name is shown at Serial No. 53 incorrectly. It is alleged that the aforesaid subsequent incorrect seniority list has been prepared with oblique motive not to regularise senior Seasonal Collection Amins within 35% vacancies reserved for them, but to regularise juniors on the basis of pick and choose. It is alleged in his representation that the aforesaid seniority list is neither signed nor approved. No objections were invited by affected persons. Thus, order dated 23.11.1995 passed by Collector, Kanpur Dehat, is per se illegal and tantamounts denial of equal protection guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. On the representation of the petitioner. Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, called for parawise reply from the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat and summoned all the relevant records including seniority lists of Seasonal Collection Amins from the office of Collector, Kanpur Dehat, on basis of which Seasonal Collection Amins were regularised on the post of Collection Amins against 35% vacancies reserved for them under amended U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 and meticulously examined the same. After examining the parawise explanation of the representation submitted by the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat and other records summoned from his office. Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, arrived at a conclusion that petitioner's work and performance was good and his name finds place in category 'A' of Seasonal Collection Amins. Petitioner's name finds place at Serial No. 16 in category 'A' of Seasonal Collection Amins, whereas in the same list the name of Sri Vijai Kumar Srivastava finds place at serial No. 26 and name of Yadunath Singh finds place at serial No. 27. According to seniority list of 1989, Sri Parmal Singh, Sri Jagdamba Prasad and Sri Zahir Ahmad are juniors to the petitioner, but all of them have been regularised on the post of Collection Amins, although according to explanation submitted by Collector, Kanpur Dehat, they are seniors to the petitioner on the basis of seniority list dated 19.7.1995, which is neither signed nor approved. No objections by affected persons have been invited. On the basis of order passed by High Court, Sri Zahir Ahmad, Suresh Kumar Singh, Vishram Singh, Ram Chandra Yadav, Vijai Kumar Srivastava and Sri Yadunath Singh, all Seasonal Collection Amins have been regularised without verifying their seniority as Seasonal Collection Amins. The names of Ram Khelawan and Jagdish Singh did not find place in category 'A' list of Seasonal Collection Amins, yet both of them have been regularised on the post of Collection Amins against principle of natural justice by adopting pick and choose procedure.
6. After recording the aforesaid positive findings, the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, set aside the order passed by Collector, Kanpur Dehat, dated 23.11.1995, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, denying regularisation on the post of Collection Amin to the petitioner and directed him to regularise the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin within 35% vacancies to be filled in by Seasonal Collection Amins in the light of decision rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1995 decided on 3.4.1995 with a further direction to Collector, Kanpur Dehat, to ensure compliance of his order dated 26.12.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition within a month and inform him accordingly.
7. The petitioner was running from pillar to post to get the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, to be complied with by the Collector, Kanpur Dehat. When attempt of the petitioner resulted into fiasco to get the order dated 26.12.1996 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, complied with, then he had no alternative except to file the present writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding Collector, Kanpur Dehat to comply with the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dated 26.12.1996 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). It is averred in the writ petition that Collector, Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2 was duly Informed about the order dated 26.12.1996, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, but he deliberately and wilfully not complying with the aforesaid order leading to grave injustice to the petitioner.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel representing respondents, I am of the view that the act of Collector, Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2 in not making compliance of the order dated 26.12.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, is demurrable. The inaction of respondent No. 2, the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, is hereby deprecated. The petitioner succeeds to establish a case for issuing a writ of mandamus.
9. Being constitutional functionary, I shall be failing in my duty if I fall to record my disapproval for grossest insubordination committed by the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, in not complying with the order dated 26.12.1996, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. In the facts and circumstances of the given case, the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat is hereby saddled to pay cost of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner for his insensitiveness in not regularising the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins under amended U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, as directed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in his order dated 26.12.1996 and his failure to inform its compliance to him within one month pursuant to said order. This kind of insubordination in democratic set up is to be viewed seriously. It is impermissible to allow institutionalisation of such nature of insubordination in public service by a public servant, who is accountable to the public at large and is also answerable to his superior officers in a democratic polity like ours.
10. It is held that fairness in district administration is a prime and fundamental principle subject to hierarchical orders passed by superior officers. It is rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State made exercisable through its officers is not abused but properly exercised. The officers functioning in district administration should not be guided on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that the officers in district administration must arrive on just decision either promoting the interest or affecting the right of a citizen. Fairness is a prime test for proper and good administration. Although it has not set a form or procedure but it is in process of evolution and its application depends upon the facts of each case.
11. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that instant writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed with special cost of Rs. 5,000, which is to be recovered from the salary of the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, who deliberately and wilfully avoided to make compliance of the order dated 26.12.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. A writ in the nature of mandamus is hereby issued mandating Collector, Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2 to ensure compliance of the order dated 26.12.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by regularising the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin against 35% vacancies reserved for Seasonal Collection Amins under the provisions contained in U. P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, as amended by Vth Amendment which came into force on 23.10.1992 with all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority from the date his junior Seasonal Collection Amins, namely, Sri Parmal Singh, Sri Jagdamba Prasad Yadav, Sri Zahir Ahmad, Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, Sri Vishram Singh, Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Sri Vijai Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ram Khelawan and Sri Jagdish Singh, had been regularised on posts of Collection Amins.
12. Office of Registry of this Court is to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. Lucknow for information and necessary action as he thinks fit and proper in the given case relating to grossest insubordination committed by the then Collector, Kanpur Dehat, in not complying with the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dated 26.12.1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition within one month and not informing him about compliance of the said order within aforesaid period.