JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 4 was issued notice by registered post pursuant to this Court’s order dated 13.10.2008. As per the office report the notice through registered post/AD sent on 17.10.2008 and the office report dated 13.7.2009 shows that notice has been received unserved with post office report “refused”. In the circumstances the service of notice is deemed sufficient. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 2. By means of the present writ petition the order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) has been assailed whereby the representation of petitioner against his supersession/non-selection for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon has been rejected confirming selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 for such appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not been selected for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Peon on the ground that in the Fasali years 1410, 1411, 1412 and 1413 the percentage of recovery was 15.5, 75, 16.9 and 23.4 respectively resulting in average recovery of 32.7 though as per U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2004”) the average recovery ought to have been at least 70%. The respondent No. 4 who was admittedly junior to the petitioner but his recovery having been noticed above 70% in the said Fasali years, was selected and given appointment to the post of Collection Peon. It is submitted that under Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 the criteria for selection for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon in respect to Seasonal Collection Peon is satisfactory service in the last at least four “Fasals”. It is submitted that under Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 the criteria for selection for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon in respect to Seasonal Collection Peon is satisfactory service in the last at least four “Fasals”. The explanation thereof further provides that satisfactory service means good conduct shown from beginning and in the last “four Fasals” he has cooperated for making recovery at least to the extent of 70% as prescribed by the Government. He contended that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have erred in considering the record of preceding four Fasali years instead of four Fasals. Further that the petitioner has not been found guilty or lacking coordination or cooperation in making recovery to the extent of 70% but since the recovery as a matter of fact was less than 70% for that purpose the petitioner has been superseded. He pointed that Rule 5 of Rule, 2004 required only cooperation on the part of the petitioner since the recovery as a matter of fact is the primary duty of the Collection Amin to whom a Collection Peon assist and, therefore, the relevant considerations as contemplated and provided in the Rules, 2004 have not been taken into account. 4. Learned Standing Counsel relying on his counter affidavit, however, supported the selection of respondent No. 4 as well as the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and said that the same has been passed in accordance with law. 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the record I find that the only issue up for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner has been considered and rejected for the post of Collection Peon on relevant considerations as provided under Rule 5 or not. 6. 5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the record I find that the only issue up for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner has been considered and rejected for the post of Collection Peon on relevant considerations as provided under Rule 5 or not. 6. Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 reads as under : ^^5- lsok esa fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa ds inksa ij HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr lzksrksa ls dh tk;sxh%& ¼,d½ ipkl izfr’kr p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk] ¼nks½ ipkl izfr’kr in ,sls lkef;d laxzg vuqlsodksa esa ls ftUgksaus de ls de pkj Qlyha rd larks"ktud dk;Z fd;k gks vkSj ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks ftlesa p;u fd;k tk; 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks] p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls Hkjs tk;sxsaA ijUrq ;fn mi;qZDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gks rks [k.M ¼,d½ ds v/khu‘ks"k fjfDr;ka lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjh tk;sxhaA Li"Vhdj.k%&larks"ktud dk;Z dk rkRi;Z gksxk kq: ls vUr rd vPNs vkpj.k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vfUre pkj Qlyksa ds nkSjku ljdkj }kjk fu;r fofgr Lrj ds vuqlkj de ls de lRrj izfr’kr olwyh esa iw.kZ lg;ksx iznku djukA** 7. A perusal of Rules shows that a Seasonal Collection Peon if has satisfactorily worked for at least “four Fasals” and is not above 45 years of age would have to be considered and if he fulfils the above criteria, is entitled to be selected for the post of Collection Peon. 8. The term “satisfactory service” has been explained and it provides that the Seasonal Collection Peon shall extend “full cooperation for recovery in the last four Fasals” according to the standard prescribed by the State Government i.e. at least 70% recovery. It nowhere provides the Seasonal Collection Peon himself would make recovery to the extent of 70% or at any other level. 9. In taking the aforesaid view I am also supported by a Single Judge decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2006 (Ishwar Chandra v. District Magistrate, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar and others) decided on 22.8.2008. Though that was a case of compulsory retirement but in respect to duties of Collection Peon this Court held that a Collection Peon is only required to assist the Collection Amin and is not responsible for the collection of dues itself which is the primary duty of Collection Amin. 10. Though that was a case of compulsory retirement but in respect to duties of Collection Peon this Court held that a Collection Peon is only required to assist the Collection Amin and is not responsible for the collection of dues itself which is the primary duty of Collection Amin. 10. The respondents in the counter affidavit have nowhere pleaded or shown as to how a Seasonal Collection Peon can be held directly responsible for lesser recovery. On the contrary, the U.P. Collection Manual, Chapter IX para 61 provides for duties of the Collection Peon and reads as under : ^^61- drZO;&ljdkjh cdk;ksa ds laxzg lEcU/kh vkns’kksa es vehu ds vkns’kksa dk vuqikyu djuk pijklh dk ije~ drZO; gSA tc vehu ljdkjh /ku ysdj ;k=k dj jgk gks ;k vius {ks= esa :dk jgs] rc og pijklh mlds lkFk jgsxkA fofHkUu izdkj dh dzwj dkydze vknsf’kdkvksa ds fu"iknu ds fy, Hkh pijkfl;ksa dh lsokvksa dk mi;ksx fd;k tk ldsxkA ,sls ekeyksa esa og Lo;a dksbZ laxzg ugha djsxkA rglhynkj rFkk vU; ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns’kksa ds v/khu] ,dhÑr laxzg vehuksa ds v/khu] laxzg pijkfl;ksa dks vU; drZO; lkSais tk;saxsA** 11. It shows that the Collection Peon has to obey the orders given by the Collection Amin and when the Amin is travelling alone with Government revenue or is staying in his area of jurisdiction, the Collection Peon will always stay with him so that his services may be utilised by the Collection Amin. Para 61 Chapter IX further provides very clearly that the Collection Peon himself will not make any recovery at all. 12. That being so, and in the light of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 5, it is evident that the Collection Peon himself is not at all responsible for any recovery whatsoever. Hence the assumption on the part of the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2 that the petitioner having failed to make recovery to the extent of 70% in the preceding four Fasali years cannot be said to have failed to satisfy the criteria of “satisfactory service” is patently illegal and in the teeth of the statute. 13. Besides, the rule also required “satisfactory service” in the “last four Fasals” and not “Fasali”. 13. Besides, the rule also required “satisfactory service” in the “last four Fasals” and not “Fasali”. The distinction between a “Fasali” and “Fasal” has been considered by this Court in Mithlesh Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ESC 1332 and this Court held as under : “This Court finds that though in the Rules one has to show his average recovery of at least 70% in the last four Fasals but the chart was submitted by Tahsildars not based on the Fasals but Fasalis i.e. the year which includes both the Fasals namely, Ravi and Kharif. The Selection Committee was also aware of this fact that it has to consider recovery performance of last four Fasals but thereafter it has clearly erred by not confining to consider performance with respect to recovery in last four Fasals but has taken the aforesaid chart to be correct without noticing the fact that the chart (Annexure-CA-2) was prepared on the basis of last four Fasalis and not on the basis of last four Fasals. One Fasali year has more than one Fasal. It is not the entire Fasali year but last four Fasals performance ought to have been considered by the Selection Committee. It has considered performance of the candidates beyond the period for which it is provided under Rule 5(1) of 1974 Rules.” 14. The above judgment was taken in Special Appeal No. 294 of 2008, Manbodh v. State of U.P. and others connected with Special Appeal No. 398 of 2008, Dev Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 17.7.2009 and the Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing both the above appeals and confirming the judgment under appeal held as under : “In our considered opinion, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at the findings on the basis of material available on record and thereafter concluding that the selections had been made contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 5 (1) read with Rule 17 (A) of the Rules. In support of the conclusion drawn, the learned Judge has very succinctly and appropriately drawn the distinction between the words “Fasal” and “Fasali”. The meaning of the said words are defined in the Law Lexicon 1997 Edition at page 713, which read as follows : “Fasl. (A.) Harvest; fasli-jyasti, fasl-kami. In support of the conclusion drawn, the learned Judge has very succinctly and appropriately drawn the distinction between the words “Fasal” and “Fasali”. The meaning of the said words are defined in the Law Lexicon 1997 Edition at page 713, which read as follows : “Fasl. (A.) Harvest; fasli-jyasti, fasl-kami. (M.) Addition or reduction in the revenue on account of double crops, or the loss of one. (Bad. Pow. iii. 99) Fasli. Of or belonging to a harvest; the Mahommadan official era. (Bad. Pow. II. 13, 14) Agricultural lease in which the word ‘Fasli’ is used unless there are indications that the intention of the parties was to use the word in its strict sense, should be held to be for the agricultural year. (LR 2 A. 139 (Rev.) Fasli or Fusli. What relates to the seasons; the harvest year. (Mac. Mhn. Law.) The name of an era instituted by Akbar, who made the samwat year agree with that of the hijra by arbitrarily cutting 649 years off from the former. This was done in the year 963 of the hijra which year was therefore also 963 fasli; but fasli or harvest year was necessarily counted according to the seasons while that of the hijra is the lunar year of only 354 days. Thus a difference of several years has arisen between the hijra year and the fasli year. (See also 1896 AWN 123). Fasli-jasti (Tel.) An extra crop, one more than usual; an extra cess imposed on land bearing more than one annual crop.” The aforesaid definitions would, therefore, reflect that the word Fasal means crop whereas the word Fasali is related to the revenue year, which ordinarily in the State of Uttar Pradesh comprises of two harvest seasons—the Kharif and the Rabi. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any material to the contrary to persuade us to opine otherwise. We find no good reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Judge.” 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.10.2007 as well as the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed. We find no good reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Judge.” 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.10.2007 as well as the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the matter of appointment on the post of Collection Peon of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ————