CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Hari Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 AHC CK 0440

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Agarwal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ A. No. 55978 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 340 words

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

The Petitioners have been non suited for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon on the ground that they did not cooperate for recovery for 70% and more in the relevant period which was under consideration.

3.

It is pointed out that in para 9 of the counter affidavit Respondents have disclosed that they have considered performance of the Petitioners for last four ''fasali'' and not ''fasal'' though the rule require that it ought to be considered in preceding four ''fasals'' and not ''fasali''. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that so far as 70% recovery is concerned, Petitioners were only Collection Peon and it was not their duty to make recovery but they had to accompany with Collection Amin and there is no charge that Petitioners did not accompany Collection Amin. Hence, if recovery was less than 70%, which was not the duty of the Petitioners, they could not be made to suffer for that. He submits that both these controversy and issues have been considered in Vinay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3363 wherein similar order, passed by Respondents, were set aside.

4.

Learned Standing Counsel having gone through the aforesaid judgment and pleadings in the writ petition could not dispute that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and also could not make any substantive argument to either distinguish the aforesaid judgment or to persuade this Court to take a different view.

5.

In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the judgment in Vinay Kumar Upadhayay (supra), writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd May, 2009 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The competent authority shall reconsider the matter of Petitioners in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law, expeditiously, but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.