Allahabad High Court
Omkar Nath S/O Sri Rameshwar Dayal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue ... on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 579 of 2010
Petitioner :- Omkar Nath S/O Sri Rameshwar Dayal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P.M. Taipathi,Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2 whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected on the ground that the percentage of recovery of the petitioner in four fasli years is less then the required percentage of recovery.
3. By enclosing certificate in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that his recovery is more than 70 % in four fasli years and his claim has wrongly been non-suited from the zone of consideration of regularization. He further submits that the Telsidar has also stated in the counter affidavit that no seniority list was prepared for consideration of claim of regularization of the petitioner. By means of the subsequent supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that the seniority list was prepared and petitioner was placed at serial no.28 of the list.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the claim of the petitioner has been non-suited on the ground of less percentage of recovery which is incorrect in view of the fact that the certificate of Tehsildar has been issued certifying the percentage of recovery of the petitioner as 72.5 % from 25.1.1997 to 31.3.1997; 79.4 % from 5.6.1998 to 31.8.1998; 91% from 4.1.1999 to 31.3.1999; 83% from 22.5.1999 to 30.9.1999; 73 % from 18.11.2000 to 16.2.2001 and thereafter 7.3.2001 to 31.3.2001; and 74.8 % from 7.1.2002 to 31.3.2002. He next submits that the reason assigned in the impugned that percentage of recovery of the petitioner is less than the required rate, and therefore, his claim is rejected, is erroneous in nature and is based on incorrect statement of fact.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is under 35 % quota reserved for the Seasonal Collection Amin and, therefore, his claim is to be considered for regularization in regard to age bar.
In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon judgment and order dated 28.05.2018 passed in Writ-A No.54923 of 2017 (Devki Nanda and 17 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others) along with connected matters.
6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the criteria for regularization was that 35 % post shall be filled up amongest the Seasonal Collection Amin inasmuch as if the Seasonal Collection Amin is crossed the age of 45 years on the 1st of July of that recruitment year their candidature cannot be considered for regularization.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and order dated 28.5.2018.
8. On perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that recovery of the petitioner is more than 70% in four fasli years as has been certified by the Tehsildar. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.28 of the seniority list as has been averred in the supplementary counter affidavit. It is the admitted position that the petitioner is overage and there is no provision in regard to relaxation of age.
9. In a similar matter i.e. Writ-A No.54923 of 2017 (Devi Nanda and 17 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others) along with connected matter wherein the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that there is no provision for grant of age relaxation under the recruitment rules, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering issue in regard to overage/ age relaxation, passed the following order:
"Resultantly, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by directing the competent authority under Rule 3 of Rules'1992 to consider:-
1. Whether there should be relaxation in the matter of maximum age, in the context of Rules'1992, for such candidates who fall within the zone of consideration on account of increase in quota to 85% (for Seasonal Collection Amin) and 100% (for Seasonal Collection Peaon), by amendment of the relevant rules, as a one time measure, but have been excluded on account of being overage though they fulfill all other eligibility requirements of the Rules, for regular appointment.
2. Similarly, a simultaneous decision shall also be taken, in the context of Rules' 1992, with regard to petitioners and other similarly situated employees, whose candidate for regular appointment has been considered under the existing quota of 35% and 50% under the second proviso, but they have been denied regular appointment on being overage and their claims have been rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that there is no provision for grant of age relaxation under the recruitment rules.
3. for the purpose, the State-respondent would be requiring to place all relevant material before the Governor so that all attending circumstances are brought to his notice so as to form an opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not; and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised.
4. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of this order before the competent authority.
Till such a decision is taken and appropriate guidelines are issued by the State-respondent in conformity with the decision of the Governor, the District authorities are restrained from making selection within the quota for regular appointment as provided under the second proviso as also under the fourth proviso of both the relevant recruitment rules, to the regular post of Collection Amins and Collection Peons.
With the above observations and directions, this bunch of writ petitions is disposed of."
10. Perusal of the above-extracted judgment and order reveals that claim of the petitioners of that writ petition have been rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that there is no provision for grant of age relaxation under the recruitment rules. The coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has observed that the State-respondent would be requiring to place all relevant material before the Governor so that all attending circumstances are brought to his notice so as to form an opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not; and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised.
11. Considering the fact that the recovery of the petitioner is more than 70 % in four fasli years as well as above-extracted judgment and order, the respondent-State is directed to place all relevant material before the Hon'ble governor so that all attending circumstances are brought to his notice so as to form an opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not; and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of this order before the competent authority.
12. Till such a decision is taken and appropriate guidelines are issued by the State-respondent in conformity with the decision of the Governor, the District authorities are restrained from making selection within the quota for regular appointment as provided under the second proviso as also under the fourth proviso of both the relevant recruitment rules, to the regular post of Collection Amins.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022
GK Sinha
