Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21738 of 2003 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Shukla,Ajit Mani Tripathi,Rajeev Trivedi,Tarun Agrawala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner, admittedly, was a Seasonal Collection Amin and having been found to have worked for 1777 days and his recovery having not been found as per prescribed level, he was not found suitable for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin under U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1974")
3. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment that the aforesaid finding recorded by District Magistrate that petitioner's recovery was not as per the prescribed standard as provided under Rules is incorrect or perverse and despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any such averment made in the writ petition. He simply said that his juniors have been appointed on substantive basis but if petitioner has not worked satisfactorily as provided under the Rules, question of his substantive appointment does not arise.
4. Moreover, the selection of Seasonal Collection Amins for substantive appointment as Colleciton Amin in which petitioners alleged that his juniors have been selected and appointed on substantive basis as Collection Amin has not been challenged and those who are already appointed are not party in the the writ petition. No relief, therefore, can be granted to petitioner.
5. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 PS