Ramesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri I.M. Tripathi for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.1997, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Allahabad deleting the name of the petitioner from the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amins prepared under U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "1974 Rules") for the purpose of considering Seasonal Collection Amins for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin in 35% quota meant for Seasonal Collection Amins. The ground of deletion of name of the petitioner from the seniority list is that percentage of recovery shown by him was found fictitious.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that neither before passing the impugned order, any opportunity or show-cause notice was given to the petitioner nor for the purpose of seniority list, the percentage of recovery, according to him, has any relevancy and the reason assigned by the respondents for deleting his name from the seniority list is wholly irrelevant, irrational and arbitrary.

Respondents have filed counter-affidavit. In para 6 thereof, it is said that by mistake of the concerned Clerk, the name of the petitioner was wrongly shown in the seniority list at Sl. No. 11 while it could not have been so mentioned inasmuch the working of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he did not achieve the target in making collection so as to be considered for regularization and for this reason, his name was deleted from the list of seniority by the impugned order.

There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that before passing the impugned order, any show-cause notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner at any point of time, though in para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically said that he was not afforded any opportunity nor any show-cause notice was issued to him before passing the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the order impugned in the writ petition adversely affect the petitioner with respect to his right not only to be engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in future but also for being considered for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin in accordance with provisions of 1974 Rules. Therefore, the impugned order having civil consequences ought not to have been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner or at least without giving him a show cause notice and the same being in violation of principles of natural justice cannot sustain.

Even otherwise, I do not find any co-relation of the reason which has been assigned by the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner from the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amins inasmuch the percentage of recovery is a relevant criteria for efficiency and merit of the concerned person so as to entitle him to be selected for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin but the same has nothing to do with the seniority inasmuch the list of seniority of Seasonal Collection Amins is prepared according to the length of service they have rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin and it has nothing to do with the percentage of recovery.

Rule 5 of 1974 Rules provides for source of recruitment and substantive appointment to the post of Collection Amin and reads as under:

5- HkrhZ dk lzksr& �1� lsok dh lkekU; Js.kh ds inksa ij HkrhZ bl fu;ekoyh ds Hkkx 5 es O;ofLFkr jhfr ls izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ij dh tk;sxhA

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd mi;qDr vH;FkhZ;ksa dh miyC/krk ds v/khu jgrs gq, iUnzg izfr''kr fjDr;kWa ,sls ekSfyd :i ls fu;qDr dysD''ku pijklh;ksa esa ls inksUufr }kjk Hkjh tk;sxh%

�d� ftUgksaus ek/;fed f''k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns''k dh de ls de gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ;k ljdkj }kjk mlds led{k ekU;rk izkIr dksbZ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks] vkSj

�[k� ftUgksus jktLo foHkkx ds dysD''ku laxBu esa de ls de N% Qlyksa dh vof/k ds fy, dk;Z fd;k gks A izfrcU/k ;g gS fd iSarhl izfr''kr fjfDr;k� ,sls lhtuy dysD''ku vehuksa esa ls p;u }kjk Hkjh tk;sxh&

�d� ftUgksaus de ls de pkj Qlyksa rd lUrks"ktud :i ls dk;Z fd;k gks]

�[k� ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks ftl o"kZ p;u fd;k tk,] 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks]

izfrcU/k ;g Hkh fd ;fn mi;qDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gksa rks ''ks"k fjfDr;k� lh/kh HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls lkekU; vH;FkhZ;ksa }kjk Hkjh tk;sxhA

Li"Vhdj.k& larks"ktud dk;Z dk rkRi;Z gksxk ''kq: ls vUr rd vPNs vkpj.k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vfUre pkj Qlyksa ds nkSjku fofgr Lrj ds vuqlkj de ls de lRrj izfr''kr olwyhA

�2� lsok dh p;u Js.kh ds inksa ij fu;qfDr bl fu;ekoyh ds Hkkx 6 esa O;ofLFkr jhfr ds lkekU; Js.kh ds LFkk;h dysD''ku vehuksa dh inksUufr djds dh tk;sxhA

The procedure for selection of Seasonal Collection Amin is provided in Rule 17 which says that the Collector shall prepare a list of all Seasonal Collection Amins working in his district for the purpose of selection for substantive appointment to the post of Collection Amin and for the purpose of selection, those Seasonal Collection Amins shall be considered on the basis of their length of service they have rendered as also the criteria provided in Rule 5 of 1974 Rules. A cumulative readings of two provisions makes it clear that the percentage of recovery of a Seasonal Collection Amin during the period he discharges his duties has nothing to do with the seniority or his right to be included in the list to be prepared by the Collector under Rule 17. The impugned order, therefore, is wholly illegal and shows a complete non-application of mind and lack of understanding of statutory provisions by the respondents.

The writ petition is. accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.1999 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to be considered for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin in accordance with law after being included in the list of seniority of Seasonal Collection Amins at appropriate place. Respondents shall also pay cost which is quantified to Rs. 5,000.