Mithai Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, refusing to grant relief prayed for by the appellant for his regularization as Collection Amin under the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1974 Rules'').

Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as a matter of fact, the appellant has made recovery, which according to his calculation, is sufficient to satisfy the explanation appended to Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules and, therefore, having acquired the minimum eligibility, the respondents had committed an error by not allowing/granting relief of regularisation to the appellant.

The appellant had earlier come to this Court praying for the same, but no such relief had been granted. However, this Court, vide judgment dated 23.7.2008, observed that if vacancies within 35% quota are available for regular appointment, the claim of the petitioner along with other such eligible Seasonal Collection Amins shall be considered irrespective of any of the observations made in the order.

During the course of enquiry, it was found that insofar as the appellant is concerned, he was appointed on ad hoc basis as Collection Amin and was continued as such and, not as a Seasonal Collection Amin. Upon the directions of this Court, the Competent Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate proceeded to examine the case of the appellant in detail and, vide order dated 22.11.2008 rejected the claim of the appellant. The finding recorded by the District Magistrate is that the appellant had worked as an ad-hoc Collection Amin and, therefore, there was no occasion for his consideration for regularisation under the 1974 Rules.

Apart from this, in view of the directions issued by this Court, the District Magistrate also proceeded to examine the claim of the appellant even otherwise on merit keeping in view the percentage of recovery, as claimed by the appellant. The District Magistrate found that in the preceding four fasals in the fasli years, on the date of consideration, the appellant did not register recovery of a minimum of 70%, which was below the minimum percentage fixed. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant was rejected. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on 05.01.2009. He moved a review application, which was also rejected by this Court on 16.7.2010. Hence this appeal.

The learned Single Judge after having traversed the entire facts has come to the conclusion that the services of the appellant had already been terminated in the year 2003 even on ad hoc basis and, apart from that, in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench, the claim of the appellant had been examined and, hence no case was made out for setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate.

The aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, are founded on facts as placed on record and do not suffer from any error. Mr. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant, then placed a supplementary affidavit before us, to contend that as against the demand, which was raised, the collection made by the appellant meets the requirement of the minimum percentage fixed and there is no such absolute rule that requirement of a minimum of 70% recovery is necessary.

We have perused the 1974 Rules. The explanation appended to Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules clearly indicates that a minimum of 70% recovery has to be made by a candidate for the purpose of consideration for being appointed as a regular Collection Amin.

In view of the aforesaid, none of the grounds raised warrants interference with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, this special appeal is dismissed.

This is an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Considering the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.

Office to register the appeal.

This special appeal is dismissed.

For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.