Rishikesh Pandey vs State Of U.P. Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 264 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6142 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Rishikesh Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Badrish Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the impugned order it is wrongly mentioned that the petitioner had not achieved the target of 70% recovery against the demand. It is also contended that 35% posts meant for regularization of Seasonal Collection Amin are to be considered against the vacancies.

Learned standing counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was required to achieve the target of 70% recovery against the prescribed standard. The petitioner has not achieved the target of 70%, even against the demand. Moreover, there is no vacancy available against the quota of 35%.

It would be appropriate that the relevant records relating to petitioner are produced.

Learned standing counsel shall produced the records.

List on 31.3.2016.

Order Date :- 10.3.2016

Santosh/-