Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3518 (ALL)

SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-11-17

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The order impugned in this writ petition is dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirawali, Agra appointing the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin pursuant to this Court’s order dated 10.1.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was a Seasonal Collection Amin and in order to seek regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin he filed Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2000 which was finally disposed of vide judgement dated 10.1.2000 with the following directions: “(i) An eligibility list of Seasonal Collection Amin, who are found eligible under Rule 5(1) of the amended rules shall be prepared by the concerned Collector of the district on the basis of seniority (incentive period) at the district level in accordance with Rule 17-ka. (ii) 35 percent of total vacancies shall be filed from amongst Seasonal Collection Amins in accordance with Rule 5 and 17-ka of the amended Rules and also in accordance with other provisions of the Rules. (iii) A select list shall be published of the candidates selected and they shall be allocated to different at Tehsil level and then the concerned Sub Divisional Officer shall issue appointment orders of the selected candidates so allocated to their respective Tehsil. (iv) Till the availability of the selected candidates in accordance with law, petitioner shall not be disturbed from their respective posts.” 4. It is said that for compliance of the said order Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Agra issued letter dated 15.7.2009 directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned not to disturb the status of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin and appoint him as such in compliance of the High Court’s judgement dated 10.1.2000 and pursuant thereto the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirawali initially passed order dated 18.7.2009 appointing the petitioner as Collection Amin till regularly selected candidates are available in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 stating that the above appointment is temporary and is liable to be terminated at any point of time but later on he modified the said order by means of the impugned order appointing the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin. 5. 3200-4900 stating that the above appointment is temporary and is liable to be terminated at any point of time but later on he modified the said order by means of the impugned order appointing the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has the effect of changing his status inasmuch as he was entitled to be appointed in a manner as is not to be disturbed and to work throughout till regularly selected candidate is available and was rightly appointed so by the order dated 18.7.2009 but by means of the impugned order dated 22.7.2009 the above status of petitioner has been changed. Hence the order impugned is in violation of principle of natural justice. Besides, it is said that it is also contrary to what has been directed by this Court vide judgement dated 10.1.2000. 6. However, I find no force in the submission. It is not disputed that the appointment to the post of Collection Amin is governed by U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “1974 Rules”) which provides that Collection Amin is a Class-III subordinate service. The cadre consists Collection Amin (General Category) and Collection Amin (Selection Category). Seasonal Collection Amin has been defined in Rule 3(jha) and reads as under: ^^3 ¼>½ ^^lhtuy vehu** dk rkRi;Z ,sls vehu ls gS tks jch ;k [kjhQ ;k nksuksa gh Qlyksa ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k tk;A** 7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sources of recruitment for substantive appointment to the post of Collection Amin (General Category) are provided in Rule 5 which provides three sources; (1) direct recruitment; (2) promotion to the extent of 15% from Collection Peon having the qualification of High School or equivalent and having worked for the last six Fasals; and (3) 35% vacancies from Seasonal Collection Amin who have worked satisfactory in the last four Fasals and not beyond the age of 45 years. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been appointed at any point of time as Collection Amin under the aforesaid 1974 Rules. The appointment of the petitioner and his status was Seasonal Collection Amin when he filed the earlier writ petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been appointed at any point of time as Collection Amin under the aforesaid 1974 Rules. The appointment of the petitioner and his status was Seasonal Collection Amin when he filed the earlier writ petition. The judgement of this Court dated 10.1.2000 nowhere shows that the petitioner’s status would stand increased from Seasonal Collection Amin to any other even though he has not been selected and appointed in accordance with 1974 Rules. The word “Seasonal Amin” is clearly defined in Rule 3(jha) which is quoted above and it shows that a person who has been appointed as Amin in the Fasals “Rabi” and “Kharif” or “both”. A Seasonal Collection Amin is not to be appointed for the entire year like a temporary Collection Amin. 1974 Rules nowhere confers any power upon the appointing authority to make temporary appointment as Collection Amin. It only talks of either Collection Amin to be appointed in accordance with 1974 Rules or Seasonal Collection Amin. This Court, therefore, while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2000 directed that till regular selection is made in accordance with 1974 Rules, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his respective post meaning thereby “Seasonal Collection Amin” because admittedly when the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition, he was working as Seasonal Collection Amin and the word “respective post” in the order would clearly relate to the “Seasonal Collection Amin”. The judgement of this Court nowhere say that the authorities would appoint petitioner in a different capacity than what he was before the writ Court. It is very evident from the words “petitioner shall not be disturbed from their respective post”. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was directed by the Additional District Magistrate to appoint the petitioner like other Seasonal Collection Amin but though the said order was purported to be complied but the Sub Divisional Magistrate in his earlier order dated 18.7.2009 appointed the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 though he was never appointed on the post of Collection Amin under the Rules, 1974 and, therefore, his status of Seasonal Collection Amin could not have been disturbed as per the orders of this Court. 3200-4900 though he was never appointed on the post of Collection Amin under the Rules, 1974 and, therefore, his status of Seasonal Collection Amin could not have been disturbed as per the orders of this Court. Hence, in order to make the situation consistent with the judgement of this Court, the Sub Divisional Magistrate immediately rectified the said order and by means of the impugned order dated 22.7.2009 appointed the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin and in my view he has rightly done so. 9. The submission that the impugned order is adverse and, therefore, ought to have been passed by giving opportunity to the petitioner, suffice it to mention that the status of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin has not been disturbed and, therefore, if any error was committed by the respondents and that is sought to be rectified, the principle of natural justice are not attracted in such a case and particularly to the facts of this case. I, therefore, find no error in the impugned order. In my view, it is strictly in accordance with the direction of this Court. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs. ————