Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Ms. Swati Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur-Kheri is present in the Court along with the relevant records.
This intra court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.3.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6836 (S/S) of 2001; Ram Swaroop vs. State of U.P. & others, whereby the writ court has allowed the writ petition with cost and a direction has been issued to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin from 1999, the year he was removed from the post of Seasonal Collection Amin.
As per given facts of the case as borne out from the record, the respondent-petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1989 and continuously worked for four fasli and collected the revenue more than 70% of the target fixed by the Government yet his services were not regularized on the post of Collection Amin. The petitioner-respondent along with certain other persons filed Writ Petition No. 2588 (S/S) of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of respondent-petitioner for appointment as regular Collection Amin within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
The Additional District Magistrate, Kheri, however rejected the claim of respondent-petitioner without assigning any reason. Aggrieved thereby the respondent-petitioner along with another person made second journey to this Court in Writ Petition No.3062 (S/S) of 2001. By order dated 2.7.2001, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that respondent-petitioner's case for regularization shall be considered afresh; keeping in mind the target as verified by the Tehsildar and applying the conditions which have been provided under the relevant Government Orders and the rules within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before the authority concerned. In compliance of the said order the Additional District Magistrate, Kheri again rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.6836 (S/S) of 2001.
It was contended by the respondent-petitioner in the writ petition that despite grant of several opportunities to file counter affidavit, the counter affidavit was not filed in the writ petition. The petitioner is fully eligible and entitled to be given regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin. It was the specific case that the respondent-petitioner has collected revenue more than 70% of the target fixed by the Government even then the authorities did not regularize his services and rather the respondent-petitioner was stopped from working on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin in 1994 without assigning any reason. It was also contended that the petitioner had appeared before the committee for selection to the post of Collection Amin held in the year 1992. He was selected and his name finds place at Sl. No.10 in the select list, a copy of which was annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. He fulfills the required conditions for regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin as provided under the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974. The writ court after hearing the parties' counsel has allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2003. The appellant who were respondents before the writ court have filed the instant special appeal challenging the impugned judgment.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that since the respondent/petitioner did not made the required percentage of recovery in the last four fasli years, as such he was not fit to be given regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin.
In order to ascertain the fact as to what was the percentage of recovery made by the respondent-petitioner in the concerning four fasli years, we had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant records. Today, when the case is taken up learned Standing Counsel has produced certain records before us. The Officer present before the Court informs that the original records relating to the recovery made by the respondent-petitioner in the concerning fasli years is not available.
From the records, we find that certain letters have been issued by the Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Mohammadi, Lakhimpur-Kheri to learned Standing Counsel in reference to the present pending special appeal wherein it has been informed that the respondent-petitioner had not made the required percentage of recovery in the concerning period.
Unless and until the original relevant records are produced by the authorities showing that the required percentage of recovery was not made by the respondent-petitioner and unless the appellants show any such document which was placed before the selection committee which had considered the case of respondent-petitioner for regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin, we cannot come to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner had not fulfilled the required criteria of collecting the required percentage of revenue in the concerning fasli years. The records do not contain any document which was considered by the selection committee while considering the case of petitioner and on the basis of which it can be ascertained that respondent/writ petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria for the post of regular Collection Amin.
In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent-petitioner had not made the required collection of revenue in the concerning fasli years which was under consideration for his appointment on the post of Collection Amin.
Learned Standing Counsel during the course of arguments has informed the Court that after passing of the impugned judgment the respondent-petitioner has been given regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin and he is presently working as Collection Amin.
In view of above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2003.
The special appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Arjun/-