Rajendra Prasad Dubey vs S.D.O.

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Seemant Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 10th January, 1992 passed by the Paragana Adhikari, Dhanaura, Moradabad as also a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to not to interfere in the working of the Petitioner as a collection amin.

The facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ pettiion are as follows:

According to the Petitioner, he has been working as a collection amin since 1976, without any opportunity, his appointment was put to an end on 10th January, 1992, which order has been impugned in the present writ petition. His work and conduct was satisfactory and therefore, he was regularized on 6th August, 1991. Copy of the regularization order has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is on these allegations that a plea has been set up that the order impugend removing the Petitioner from service without any notice and opportunity of hearing is legally not sustainable.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-Respondent and it has been stated that there is absolutely no record qua the Petitioner having worked as collection amin regularly since 1976. It has been further stated that the list, which has been enclosed by the Petitioner bears no signature and does not exist on record of the office concerned. Lastly it has been stated that the Petitioner had worked as seasonal collection amin only. Thereafter for the period January, 1990 to 10th January, 1992 continuously. It has also been stated that since 21st July, 1992, he has been employed under the interim order of this Court dated 9th April, 1992 passed in the present writ petition.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and the averments made in paragraphs-5 and 6 to the counter affidavit have been vaguely denied. Reference has been made to the manner in which the contents of counter affidavit has been sworn. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Writ Court dated 24th November, 1992 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12838 of 1992 (Shri Tikam Singh v. Collector/District Magistrate, Moradabad and Ors.).

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

There is absolutely no material on record, which can establish that the Petitioner has been continuously working as collection amin since 1976 as has been claimed in paragraph-3 of the present writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel clarifies that such working of the Petitioner was only as seasonal collection amin, however, nothing turns upon the same, so far as the authenticity of the document, which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ pettiion are is concerned. Annexure-3 of the present writ petition is an order dated 6th August, 1991, which records as follows:

Tadartha/Asthayee roop se niyukt Sri Rajendrapal Singh ko sangrah amin ke pad par tatkal prabhav se niyamit kiya jata hai.

Hast.

Dinank-6-8-91 Paragana Adhikari Dhanaura.

I am of the considered opinion that such orders are wholly without authority of law, inasmuch as absolutely no provision has been referred to wherein appointment of Tadartha/Asthayee employees like the Petitioner could be made on regular basis. Neither any statutory Rules nor any Government Order which provide for such regularization of Tadartha/Asthayee collection amins has been noticed.

Under the statutory provisions of U.P. Collection Amin Services Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules, 1974'') as amended from time to time, there is no concept of any regularization being offered. Rules, 1974 only makes a provision for 35% of the regular posts of collection amins being filled from amongst seasonal collection amins and for the purpose, a detail procedure has been prescribed. It is not the case of the Petitioner that such procedure for regular appointment as collection amin within 35% quota provided therein has been followed nor any such fact is referred to in the order dated 6th August, 1991.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that no right is conferred upon the Petitioner only because of issuance of the letter dated 6th August, 1991. Consequently this Court further holds that disengagement order of the Petitioner dated 10th January, 1992, which specifically records that he is still temporary collection amin is striclty in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.

The Court was also taken through the list which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which according to the Petitioner, is the list of candidates selected for regular appointment. The list contains 71 names and according to the counter affidavit it is waste paper and it has not been signed by any of the competent authority under Rules, 1974. Even otherwise, this Court may record that there is absolutely no material which can establish that in the relevant year, as to whether 71 vacancies within 35% quota of collection amin, which were required to be filled from seasonal collection amins, were available.

In the totality of the circumstances, on record, Petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish any case for any interference being made against the impugned order or for any mandamus as has been prayed for being issued.

So far as the working of the Petitioner under the interim order of this Court is concerned, it may be recorded that such continuance of the Petitioner will not accrue to his benefit once the writ petition itself is dismissed, inasmuch as the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that any benefit claimed because of an interim order has to be neutralized by the Court, in case the writ petition is to be dismissed finally. (Reference Dr. A.R. Sircar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 734; Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 726 ; Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur, through its Manager and another Vs. Sree Kumar Tiwary and another, and M/S. GTC Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Others,

Accordingly it is held that no benefit of continuous employment under the interim order of this Court will accrue in favour of the Petitioner.

However, it is provided that if the case of the Petitioner is that in accordance with his seniority and on other requirements of Rules, 1974 being satisfied, the District Magistrate may consider his claim within 35% quota in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

The present writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.