Arun Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Petitioner, who is working as a Seasonal Collection Peon in district Jaunpur since 1999, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment as a Collection Peon in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'').

It is submitted by Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the only reason assigned for not regularizing the services of the Petitioner as Collection Peon is that the in the last four ''Fasli'' years the recovery was less than 70% but under the Rules what is provided is that if a Seasonal Collection Peon has satisfactorily work for at least ''Four Fasals'' and is not above 45 years, then he can be considered for selection as a Collection Peon. It is, therefore, his contention that his claim should have been considered.

In the counter affidavit filed by the State all that has been stated is that the recovery in the last ''Four Fasli'' years was less than 70% and, therefore, the Petitioner was not considered for the post of Collection Peon.

In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 5 of the Rules, which is as follows:

Source of recruitment.-Recruitment to the posts in the service shall be made from the following sources-

(i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee.

(ii)Fifty per cent posts shall be filled through the Selection Committee from amongst such Seasonal Collection Peons who have worked satisfactorily for at least four Fasals and whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years:

Provided that if suitable candidates are not available, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment under Clause (i).

Explanation-Satisfactory work shall mean extending full co-operation in at least seventy per cent realisation as per prescribed standard fixed by the Government during the last four Fasals and good conduct throughout.

This Rule was interpreted by a learned Judge of this Court in Vinay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2009(5) ESC 3132 and it was observed:

A perusal of Rules shows that a Seasonal Collection Peon if has satisfactorily worked for at least "four Fasals" and is not above 45 years of age would have to be considered and if he fulfils the above criteria, is entitled to be selected for the post of Collection Peon. The term "satisfactory service" has been explained and it provides that the Seasonal Collection Peon shall extend "full cooperation for recovery in the last four Fasals" according to the standard prescribed by the State Government i.e. at least 70% recovery. It nowhere provides the Seasonal Collection Peon himself would make recovery to the extent of 70% or at any other level.

In taking the aforesaid view I am also supported by a Single Judge decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2006, Ishwar Chandra v. District Magistrate Khalilabad Sant Kabir Nagar and Ors Writ Petition No 2421 of 2006 decided on 22.08.2008. Though that was a case of compulsory retirement but in respect to duties of Collection Peon this Court held that a Collection Peon is only required to assist the Collection Amin and is not responsible for the collection of dues itself which is the primary duty of Collection Amin.

The Respondents in the counter affidavit have nowhere pleaded or shown as to how a Seasonal Collection Peon can be held directly responsible for lesser recovery. On the contrary, the U.P. Collection Manual, Chapter IX para 61 provides for duties of the Collection Peon and reads as under:

61- drZO; & ljdkjh cdk;ksa ds laxzg lEcU/kh vkns''kksa esa vehu ds vkns''kksa dk vuqikyu djuk pijklh dk ije~ drZO; gS A tc vehu ljdkjh /ku ysdj ;k=k dj jgk gks ;k vius {ks= esa :dk jgs] rc og pijklh mlds lkFk jgsxk A fofHkUu izdkj dh �wj dky�e vknsf''kdkvksa ds fu"iknu ds fy, Hkh pijkfl;ksa dh lsokvksa dk mi;ksx fd;k tk ldsxk A,sls ekeyksa esa og Lo;a dksbZ laxzg ugha djsxk A rglhynkj rFkk vU; ofj"V vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns''kksa ds v/khu],dhd`r laxzg vehuksa ds v/khu] laxzg pijkfl;ksa dks vU; drZO; lkSais tk;saxs A

It shows that the Collection Peon has to obey the orders given by the Collection Amin and when the Amin is travelling alone with Government revenue or is staying in his area of jurisdiction, the Collection Peon will always stay with him so that his services may be utilised by the Collection Amin. Para 61 Chapter IX further provides very clearly that the Collection Peon himself will not make any recovery at all. That being so, and in the light of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 5, it is evident that the Collection Peon himself is not at all responsible for any recovery whatsoever. Hence the assumption on the part of the District Magistrate, Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner having failed to make recovery to the extent of 70% in the preceding four Fasali years cannot be said to have failed to satisfy the criteria of "satisfactory service" is patently illegal and in the teeth of the statute.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.10.2007 as well as the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the matter of appointment on the post of Collection Peon of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made here above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

(emphasis supplied)

It has been held that the Rule does not require that the Seasonal Collection Peon should himself make recovery of 70% and so the insistence on this requirement is illegal.

It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

The case of the Petitioner is, therefore, required to be considered in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment. The Respondents shall, therefore, consider the case of the Petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made above expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the Petitioner before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.