JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, prayer has been made in the writ petition that the petitioner has worked as Seasonal Tax Collector for quite long time and he ought to have been regularized in service and was illegally black listed as well as later on he was not regularized in service. 3. As it appears from the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Tax Collector for he first time on 22nd February 1969 in Water Resources Department and was posted at Tilouth under Dehri Tube-well Circle within the Revenue Division at Aurangabad and continued on that post till 1981. It appears from the record that he used to be engaged on the said post for the purpose of collecting water tax from the farmers. It was further pointed out that vide letter no. 1236 dated 1st July 1981 he was again appointed on the said post. 4. According to the petitioner, in the year 1983, a provisional seniority list was prepared in which the name of petitioner is at Sl.No.18 The petitioner was again engaged as Tax Collector for the revenue year 1993-94 but during that period he could collect tax to the tune of Rs.219.70 from the farmers. Due to this, a show cause letter was issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 33 Mu. Dated 21st September 1994 (Annexure-4) about his poor performance. On receipt of the same, petitioner had given reply but it was found to be not satisfactory and accordingly, he was black listed and was barred from future engagement. He filed a representation and the same found favour by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Divisions, Aurangabad, who had recommended that he was engaged for a very short period and for that he should not be black listed and for that reason he could not be engaged for he year 1995-96 and sought for proper direction from the department with regard to future engagement of the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner has raised a grievance that he has worked for such a long period but he has been left out though others have been engaged again. 5. In the writ petition, petitioner has raised a grievance that he has worked for such a long period but he has been left out though others have been engaged again. 5. Learned counsel for the State has contradicted the submission of the petitioner and submitted that even though petitioner was black listed, nonetheless his case was considered but he could not be selected as he was at Sl.No. 182 whereas persons only upto Sl.No.116 were regularized. It will be relevant to mention here that the petitioner belongs to general category and only 75 posts were available for general category and the last person selected was at Sl. No. 116. The petitioner has raised a grievance that he was wrongly deprived of regularization. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was only seasonal employee having no right to be regularized but even then his case was considered and he was found not fit for regularization. He has further pointed out from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that the criterion which has been mentioned in the resolution is that the person having at least 25 per cent collection for last five years were to be regularized but the petitioner does no fulfil the criterion. 7. Having considered the contention of both sides, I find that the contention raised by the State is correct. The petitioner was only seasonal employee having no right of regularization but the State Government in the year 1993 have regularized certain seasonal employee in different categories where name of petitioner was considered but he could not be regularized as he was at Sl. No. 182 and the person being at sl.no.116 could have been regularized. Another point with regard to the blacklisting is concerned, it appears from the writ petition itself that before black listing the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to him whereupon he filed his explanation and only then he was black listed because of his poor performance in collection. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed but without any costs.