JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue orders in regard to allotment of regular work to him of seasonal nature for the post of Assistant Wasil Waki Navis or in the alternate as the Seasonal Collection Amin till the date of his absorption as Collection Amin permanently in the respondents department. 3. By means of amended prayer No. 1 it has been prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 passed by respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad appended as Annexure-1/8 to the affidavit/amended writ petition with its all consequential effects whatsoever throughout. 4. It has also been prayed by the petitioner that a direction may be issued to the respondents for providing him service benefits regularly to the post of Seasonal Collection Amin or Assistant Wasil Waki Navis as the case may be. 5. By the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 the representation of the petitioner for regularization in service had been turned down. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amins’ Service Rules, 1974, which provides for source of recruitment to the post of Collection Amin. It also provides that 35% posts are to be filled up from the Seasonal Collection Amins already working in the department who have passed at least High School or any Educational qualification equivalent to it and has also worked in the Revenue department at least six Faslis. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the post of Collection Amin can be filled up under 35% promotional quota from the Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked satisfactorily for more than 4 Faslis and whose age on 1st July in the relevant year at the time of appointment is not less than 45 years. 8. No other point has been argued by the petitioner. 9. From the High School Certificate appended with the writ petition it is apparent that the age of the petitioner at present is more than 60 years as his date of birth is 15th February, 1949. Moreover, the petitioner was more than 45 years of age, even according to the High School Certificate. 9. From the High School Certificate appended with the writ petition it is apparent that the age of the petitioner at present is more than 60 years as his date of birth is 15th February, 1949. Moreover, the petitioner was more than 45 years of age, even according to the High School Certificate. From the record it also appears that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. 10. For all the reasons stated above, in my opinion, the writ petition has no force and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ————