Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 15 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on 09.10.2025
Delivered on 15.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT A No. - 15859 of 2021
Dinesh Kumar Shukla
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Ors.
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Pt. S. Chandra, Ravi Kant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 25
HONBLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anirudh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 31.08.2020, passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich and for issuance of a direction to the District Magistrate, Bahraich, to appoint the petitioner to the post of Regular Collection Amin in Tehsil Sadar, District Bahraich, along with all consequential benefits.
3. The facts that have emerged from the pleadings in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 25.05.1997 in Tehsil Bahraich of District Bahraich and he worked till 31.03.2000. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.24 on the information list prepared in compliance of letter no.298/सी.आर.ए. तीन अधीo dated 07.09.2001 issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Bahraich, in which the petitioner has been shown appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Bahraich of District Bahraich on 27.05.1997 and has worked for four fasli years, namely, 1405 (Kharif), 1406 (Kharif), 1406 (Rabi) and 1407 (Kharif) and has worked overall 320 days with percentage of recovery 53%, 61%, 58% and 50% respectively.
4. It seems that when, after 31.03.2000 the petitioner was not given any work of Seasonal Collection Amin, he filed Writ Petition No.4736 (SS) of 2000, in which an interim order dated 29.08.2000 was passed, by which the writ Court restrained new appointment either as Seasonal Collection Amin or Regular Collection Amin till the petitioner is engaged provisionally on one of the vacant posts.
5. Due to the said restrain order dated 29.08.2000, no appointment could be made. Hence, some of the Seasonal Collection Amin, who were eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin, filed Writ Petition No.4831 (SS) of 2002 (Ram Awatar & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others).
6. The Writ Petition No.4736 (SS) of 2000 filed by the petitioner as well as the Writ Petition No.4831 (SS) of 2002 were heard together and an order dated 05.02.2010 was passed modifying the restrain order dated 29.08.2000, allowing the State Government to proceed with the appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin in accordance with law, while keeping one post reserved for the petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition No.4736 (SS) of 2000 filed by the petitioner was finally disposed of on 09.07.2013 with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin in the light of averments made in paragraph nos.4, 5, 10 and 11 of the writ petition. By then, certain appointments were made on the post of Regular Collection Amin vide order dated 24.01.2011, but petitioner was not appointed.
8. In furtherance of the directions contained in the order dated 09.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4736 (SS) of 2000, the District Magistrate, Bahraich, after due consideration and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed order dated 09.09.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin.
9. The petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.2794 of 2013, in which order dated 14.03.2014 was passed to take fresh decision considering the claim of the petitioner, as while passing the order dated 09.09.2013, the District Magistrate failed to take into account the averments made in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 10 and 11 of Writ Petition No.4736 (SS) of 2000 as directed by the Honble Court while passing the order dated 09.07.2013.
10. In furtherance of the order dated 14.03.2014, passed in the contempt proceedings, the District Magistrate passed fresh order dated 07.04.2014 and after considering the issues raised by the petitioner, rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin. The contempt petition was also dismissed after passing of the order dated 07.04.2014.
11. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.5878 (SS) of 2014, challenging the order dated 07.04.2014, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2020, quashing the order dated 7.4.2014 and remitting the matter back to the District Magistrate for taking a fresh decision in light of the judgment of the Honble Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana v. Collector Azamgarh, 2001 SCC OnLine All 35.
12. In the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra), the Honble Writ Court, while taking into consideration the aspect of the target of recovery, held that recovery depends on various factors which are beyond the control of a Seasonal Collection Amin, and therefore, it cannot adversely reflect upon the efficiency of the Seasonal Collection Amin. Paragraph no. 8 of the judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra) reads as below :-
This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the Petitioner was low for reason other than his own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons likeorders from Court, the total extent of recovery to the made in one's area and/or whether Government itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought, etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency.
13. In compliance with the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.5878 (SS) of 2014, the District Magistrate took a fresh decision and passed an order dated 31.08.2020, coming to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be appointed to the post of Regular Collection Amin, as the recovery made by the petitioner was less than 70% and none of the contingencies such as famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court, or any other natural calamity existed so as to adversely affect the recovery by the petitioner.
14. The petitioner, through the present petition, has challenged the order dated 31.08.2020 on the ground that since he had worked from 25.05.1997 up to 31.03.2000 on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin and a post was kept reserved for him vide interim order dated 29.08.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.4736 (SS) of 2000 and post is still available, he is entitled to be appointed on the post of Regular Collection Amin. He has also contended that the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the District Magistrate overlooked the directions contained in the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra). Apart from that, it has also been alleged that there has been miscalculation while calculating the recovery done by the petitioner and that the copy of the report dated 30.08.2020 of S.D.M., Bahraich, which the District Magistrate has relied upon while passing the order dated 31.08.2020 was not served upon the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has annexed information provided to him vide letter dated 05.01.2021 under the Right to Information Act, in which it has been indicated that from the year 1997 to 2000, three Tehsils, namely, Nanpara, Mehsi and Kaisarganj, were affected by floods. Hence, it has also been contented that the rejection on the ground that there was no hurdle in recovery on account of the absence of any of the factors referred to in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra) is contrary to the factual position.
15. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to go through the relevant statutory provisions relating to engagement of Seasonal Collection Amins and Peons and their recruitment to regular posts.
16. The engagement of Seasonal Collection Amin/Peons in the revenue department is guided by the U.P. Collection Mannual. The para 19 of the Collection Mannual states that Seasonal Collection employees would be engaged in addition to the permanent staff, in case of administrative exigencies, after approval of the Commissioner of the Division. For the purpose, the Sub Divisional Officer would be requiring to submit a report to the Collector giving detail reasons for such engagement and the pending demands for recovery in the District.
17. The Collector after receipt of the approval of the Commissioner shall direct the Sub Divisional Officer, who will make such engagement as per the procedure.
18. Having gone through the relevant paragraphs of the U.P. Collection Manual, it is noteworthy that the Seasonal Collection Amins/Peons are being engaged in contingency where large number of demands are outstanding and permanent staff is insufficient to meet the requirement.
19. Thus, there cannot be a doubt to the fact that the Seasonal Collection Amin/Peon are the support staff of the revenue department who are engaged in departmental exigencies by adopting the procedure provided under the Collection Manual and Circulars issued by the Board of Revenue from time to time.
20. To understand the object and purpose of the statutory provisions governing absorption or regular appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin/Peon and to know the real intent of the legislation, it would be appropriate to go through the history of the legislation, namely the rules governing recruitment and conditions of services of Collection Amin and Collection Peon.
21. The U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1974) was promulgated on 09.08.1974. The said rule has been framed by the Governor in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in suppression of all existing rules and order, with a view to regulate the matter of recruitment and service conditions of Collection Amin.
22. The un-amended Rules, 1974 provided for two sources of recruitment; Direct recruitment through competitive examination subject to the conditions that 10% of the vacancies would be filled by promotion of the Seasonal Collection Peon, subject to their suitability. There was no provision for regular appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin in the un-amended Rules, 1974.
23. The un-amended Rules, 1974 was subjected to amendment from time to time. By Amendment Rules 1977, relaxation was granted in the required minimum academic qualification for the purpose of direct recruitment to those who had worked as Seasonal Collection Peon for at least four fasals till the commencement of the amended Rules and further whose names were included in the approved list of candidates for re-appointment on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on the date of commencement of the rules. This requirement was further relaxed vide Third amendment Rules, 1980 in the following words :-
"Academic qualification- A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have passed the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or an examination recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto:
Provided that, in respect of persons who were recruited in the service prior to the commencement of these Rules, the academic qualifications shall be deemed to be as prescribed at the time of their first regular appointment in the Service:
Provided further that, in respect of persons who has been appointed to the post of Seasonal Collection Amins, prior to the commencement of the U.P. Collection Amins' Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 1980 and who have already worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals till the said date, the academic qualifications shall be as prescribed at the time of their first appointment as Seasonal Amin."
24. By Fourth amendment Rules 1984, a new clause in Rule 3 of Rules, 1974 was added to define "the year of recruitment" which means a period of 12 years commenced from the first day of July of the Calendar year. There was an amendment to Rule 5 also by adding clause-A to sub-rule (1) but the same is not relevant for purpose of this litigation.
25. For the first time, by way of Fifth amendment Rules 1992, Rule 5 was amended by adding Second proviso wherein right of regular appointment was given to Seasonal Collection Amins which reads as under:-
"Recruitment to posts in the ordinary grade of the service shall be made on the result of a competitive examination as provided in Part V of these rules:
Provided that subject to availability of suitable candidates fifteen percent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion from amongst such substantively appointed collection peons-
(a) Who have passed at least High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto: and
(b) Who have worked in the Collection Organization of the Revenue Department for a period of at least six Fasals:
Provided further that thirty-five percent vacancies shall be filled by selection from amongst such Seasonal Collection Amins-
(a) who have worked satisfactorily for at least for four Fasals:
(b) Whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years.
Provided also that if suitable candidates are not available, remaining vacancies shall be filled by general candidates through direct recruitment."
26. Rule 17-A was added to provide the method of selection of Seasonal Collection Amins to regular posts.
27. Rule 17-A is quoted as under:-
"17-A- Procedure for selection of Seasonal Collection Amins- The Collector shall prepare a list of Seasonal Collection Amins who are eligible for selection under the first proviso of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 and select from amongst them, the required number of candidates on the basis of seniority or the length of their service on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin in the district subject to satisfactory work."
28. By Sixth amendment Rules 2004, 'explanation' to second proviso to explain "satisfactory work", the requirement in the second proviso, was added to say that the satisfactory work would mean average collection of at least 70% as per the prescribed standard. Thus, it was only after the 6th Amendment Rules, 2004 that the requirement of at least 70% of the recovery was added to the explanation of the term satisfactory work.
29. In light of the above statutory provisions and the contention of the petitioner regarding the challenge to the order dated 31.08.2020, this Court finds that the petitioners contention that he worked as a Seasonal Collection Amin from 25.05.1997 to 31.03.2000 and that the post was reserved for him in view of the direction contained in Writ Petition No. 4736 (SS) of 2000 and for that reason is entitled for appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin is misconceived. The engagement of a Seasonal Collection Amin is only in addition to the permanent staff, to meet administrative exigencies, and is not against any sanctioned post.
30. It was for the first time, through the 5th Amendment in the year 1992, that a source of recruitment for the post of Regular Collection Amin was provided from among the Seasonal Collection Amins, to the extent of 35%, subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions. Merely working for a limited period in the present case, for less than three years, cannot confer any indefeasible right to be appointed to the post of Regular Collection Amin as such appointment can be only made in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1974.
31. The contention of the petitioner that his recovery was satisfactory and that there was a miscalculation is also not tenable in the eyes of law as he never challenged the recovery figures as indicated in information list prepared in compliance of letter no.298/सी.आर.ए. तीन अधीo dated 07.09.2001 issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Bahraich, in which the percentage of recovery of the petitioner for four Fasli years, namely, 1405 (Kharif), 1406 (Kharif), 1406 (Rabi) and 1407 (Kharif), during which he worked for a total of 320 days, was shown recovery percentages of 53%, 61%, 58%, and 50%, respectively. The petitioner after issuance of the information list prepared in compliance of letter no.298/सी.आर.ए. तीन अधीo dated 07.09.2001 filed writ petitions seeking appointment on the post of Regular Collection Amin but never challenged the recovery figures shown in the information list and as such it is not open for him to dispute the recovery figures at this stage.
32. The petitioner has throughout the litigation in the present writ petition or in earlier writ petitions has mainly insisted that recovery of less than 70% cannot be a criteria of rejection of his candidature for being appointed on the post of Regular Collection Amin in light of the judgement passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (Supra).
33. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has annexed a letter dated 05.01.2021 obtained under the Right to Information Act, in which it has been indicated that from the year 1997 to 2000, three Tehsils, namely, Nanpara, Mehsi and Kaisarganj, were affected by floods. The petitioner was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Bahraich (Sadar), District Bahraich and not in Nanpara, Mehsi and Kaisarganj, hence the floods in Tehsils Nanpara, Mehsi and Kaisarganj have no relevance with respect to the discharge of the duty of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Bahraich (Sadar), District Bahraich, which was not affected by flood. Moreover, the petitioner in his pleadings in the memo of writ petition has not disclosed presence of any of the adverse contingencies such as famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court or any other natural calamity which adversely affected his recovery.
34. The contention of the petitioner that he was not provided the report dated 31.07.2020 of the S.D.M., Bahraich, which was relied upon by the District Magistrate, Bahraich before passing of the order dated 31.08.2020 is also not tenable in the eye of law as the report of the S.D.M. dated 31.07.2020 was only a factual information to the extent of existence of contingencies of famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court or any other natural calamity during the last four fasli years and could not be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner has nowhere pleaded about existence of any such contingencies referred hereinabove, which adversely affected his recovery work. The petitioner at no point of time has stated that his recovery was adversely affected by either of the mitigation factor of famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court or any other natural calamity and as such no prejudice has been caused to him due to non-supply of report of S.D.M. dated 31.7.2020.
35. The order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Bahraich, duly considers all the issues raised by the petitioner in the light of the directions contained in the judgment passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (Supra) after verifying the fact that the recovery of the petitioner was not adversely affected by any of the mitigating factor of famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court or any other natural calamity and came to conclusion that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory as the average percentage of recovery for the last four fasli years by the petitioner in the capacity of Seasonal Collection Amin was only 55%, much less than 70% required under the Rules, 1974. The Rules, 1974 provides certain eligibility qualifications for recruitment on the post of Collection Amin from amongst Seasonal Collection Amins which has to be adhered and any deviation from it will amount to violation of the statutory provisions which cannot be permitted. Once, it is found that petitioner recovery is only 55%, much less than 70% in last four fasals, and there was no mitigating factor of famine, drought, flood, stay of recovery by the Court or any other natural calamity adversely affecting the recovery, then the order dated 31.8.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Collection Amin cannot be faulted upon. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai, J)
October 15, 2025
Ashish Dewal
