Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Prasad Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164649
Reserved on 27.04.2023
Delivered On 11.08.2023
Court No. - 65
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7936 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mahendra Prasad Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4.
2. At the very outset, the learned Standing Counsel submits that present writ petition may be disposed of finally without filing a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has no objection to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by respondent-3, the Collector, Jaunpur (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) whereby, representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2011 filed pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2021 has been rejected.
4. Record shows that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin. He worked as such in different faslies. The State Government in order to mitigate the grievances of Seasonal Collection Amin promulgated the Rules known as the U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules 1974. The said rules were amended in the year 2013, whereby it was provided that 35% of the vacancy in the cadre of Collection Amins were to be filled from Seasonal Collection Amins.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfilled the prescribed criteria under the Rule for regularization/appointment as Seasonal Collection Amin yet his claim was not considered. He accordingly approached this Court by means Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15851 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. The same was finally disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2021. For ready reference order dated 01.12.2021 is reprodeuced herein-under:
"Heard Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities.
Present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to consider the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin under 35% quota of Rule 5 of U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974 as amended by time to time, after correcting the Seniority List suitable place in the Seniority List, considering the judgment passed in case of Pankaj Srivastava which is reported in 2013 (11) ADJ 473 and also considering the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54923/2017, Deoki Nandan Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was decided by this Hon'ble Court, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 after giving the joining to the petitioners on the post of collection Amin to give the notional seniority to the petitioner when the juniors than the petitioner were given joining, also pay the arrears of salary and current salary month to month."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of having eligibility his case was not considered for regularization on the post of Collection Amin. He submits that his case is liable to be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava, 2013 (11) ADJ 473 wherein it was opined that 'satisfactory service' would mean that in last four fasals, Seasonal Collection Amins should have attained recovery with the prescribed norms of at least 70%. Expression 'last four fasals' would mean last four fasals out of total number of fasals in which he has worked. It does not mean that he must have actually working on date on which the Selection Committee applies its mind.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly juniors to the petitioner have been regularized but the authorities have discriminated in the matter. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be addressed by the competent authority in the light of the judgment in Pankaj Srivastava (Supra).
So far as age relaxation is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Devki Nandan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No.54923 of 2017 decided on 28.5.2018.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in Pankaj Srivastava (Supra) and Devki Nandan & Ors. (Supra) within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 1.12.2021"
6. Pursuant to above order dated 01.12.2021, petitioner made a detailed representation dated 13.12.2021 before respondent-3, the Collector, Jaunpur, for regularization as Collection Amin. However, the said representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by respondent-3 vide order dated 22.04.2022.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the claim of petitioner has been rejected on the ground that recovery made by petitioner in four different faslies is not in accordance with the norms.
8. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the said conclusion drawn by the respondent-3 is a bald conclusion. There is no mention of the material facts pertaining to the petitioner nor there is a recital in the impugned order as to what was the recovery made by the petitioner in the different faslies and in what manner the same is inappropriate. He therefore, submits that the order impugned is, therefore, arbitrary and hence liable to the quashed by this Court.
9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has tried to justify the order impugned. He contends that since the finding recorded in the impugned order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the burden is upon the petitioner to dislodge the same with reference to the material pertaining to the petitioner himself. As the petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court finds that the claim of petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Collection Amin has been rejected only on the ground that the collection made by the petitioner in four different faslies was not in accordance with the norms. The said finding recorded by the District Collector/respondent-3 is no finding in law inasmuch as there is no discussion nor narration of the facts pertaining to the recoveries made by the petitioner in the different faslies he worked as Seasonal Collection Amin. Thus conclusion drawn by the District Collector is bald conclusion. It is well settled that the veracity of an order is to be judged in the light of the reason contained in the order itself. The same cannot be supplemented by means of counter affidavit vilde M. P. Singh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner A.I.R. 1978 SC 851.
11. In view of above, present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
12. It is accordingly allowed.
13. The order impugned dated 22.04.2022 passed by respondent-3, the Collector, Jaunpur (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed.
14. Matter shall stand remanded to the District Collector/Respondent-3 for decision a fresh within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023
YK
