JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners' claim for regular appointment/ regularization under Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Peon Rules, 2004 as amended up to date has been declined on the ground that there is a ban on such appointment by the State Government. Base on this very reasoning another order has been passed by the respondents which was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 11201(S/S) of 2016 which was decided on 25.05.2016 in the following terms: - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Inspite of the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel is not able to produce before the Court the Government Order dated 08.09.2010. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court a judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 passed in Writ- A No. 15029 of 2011 and connected petitions which reads as under: - "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners are working as Seasonal Collection Peon and have filed the present writ petition praying that they should be appointed or absorbed on the post of Collection Peon under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon Services Rules, 2004. The petitioners contend that they have put in 25 years of service as Collection Peon and that they are entitled to be absorbed for the post of Collection Peon under the aforesaid Rules. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating therein that the claim of the petitioners for regularization on the post of Collection Peon was considered by the Selection Committee, in the year 2009 and, that the petitioners were not found fit for regularization. The respondents further contended that since 2009 no further Selection Committee has been held in view of the fact that the State Government has imposed a ban on the appointment of Class-IV posts and, consequently, the claim of the petitioners at the present moment cannot be considered till such time the ban is not lifted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the State Government cannot impose a blanket ban by an administrative order bringing to naught the Rules which have a statutory force of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the State Government cannot impose a blanket ban by an administrative order bringing to naught the Rules which have a statutory force of law. The Rules provide that the vacancies on the post of Collection Peons are required to be filled up from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons. There are vacancies existing on the post of Collection Peon and the respondents are under a mandate under the Rules to fill up these posts. The State Government by an executive fiat, cannot impose a blanket ban, and allow it to continue indefinitely. In the opinion of the Court such imposition of a ban order, issued two years ago, has lost its efficacy. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the Competent Authority to take steps to fill up the vacancies of Collection Peons, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules of 2004 within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." The said judgment passed on 30.10.2012 refers to a Government Order issued two years earlier imposing a ban. The said judgment categorically holds that the said government order with the passage of time has become inoperative and such a ban can not continue indefinitely. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, this Court has disposed of Writ Petition No. 5427(SS) of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 which reads as under: - "(C. M. Application No. 46858 of 2016) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as Seasonable Collection Peon under Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Peon Services Rules, 2004 has been declined only on the ground of a ban having been imposed by the State Government vide order dated 15.03.2012. This issue is no longer res-integra as in Writ- A No. 15029 of 2011 and other connected petitions decided on 30.10.2012 the ban has been held to be inoperative. The said judgment has also been followed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2793(SS) of 2016 wherein the judgment passed in a similar writ petition has been followed, therefore, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order can not be sustained and the impugned order is, accordingly, quashed. The said judgment has also been followed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2793(SS) of 2016 wherein the judgment passed in a similar writ petition has been followed, therefore, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order can not be sustained and the impugned order is, accordingly, quashed. The record reveals that some of the petitioners have crossed the maximum age of 45 years. In view of the above, let the claim of the petitioners be reconsidered for regular appointment as Seasonable Collection Peons by the competent authority in the light of the observations made herein above after considering their claim for relaxation in age as per the policy and rules of the Government on the subject, keeping in mind the relevant conditions for entitlement to such regularization within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms." In Writ Petition No. 2793(SS) of 2016 the following judgment and order was passed by this Court on 16.03.2016: - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 09.02.2016 the following order was passed: - "Heard. Contention of the petitioner is two fold, firstly 70% recovery is not to be seen at the time of consideration from Seasonal Collection Peon for regular appointment as they are only to cooperate with the Collection Amin in recovery of the said amount and if the cooperation is satisfactory, then merely because the recovery of the amount was less than 70%, it cannot be a ground for declining the claim of the petitioner; secondly, 70% recovery, if at all it is to be seen, it has to be seen in all four Faslis, and not in respect of each Fasli, as has been done in the case of the petitioner. Other contention is that more than 80% recovery has been made which, of course, is a factual issue. Junior to the petitioner is alleged to have been promoted. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Other contention is that more than 80% recovery has been made which, of course, is a factual issue. Junior to the petitioner is alleged to have been promoted. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. List this case on 3.3.2016 as fresh." Learned standing counsel submits that there is a ban on such appointment and if average of recovery of four Faslis is 70% or more only then the petitioner may have a case, but, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization/regular appointment the reason mentioned is that petitioner's recovery is not 70% in each Fasli, therefore, his case for regular appointment/regularization cannot be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that juniors to petitioner have been regularized. As there is an earlier judgment and order of the Court in Writ-A No. 15029 of 2011 (Triveni Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and other connected petitions, decided on 30.10.2012, therefore, ban on such appointments would not come in the way of the petitioners consideration for regularization. In view of the above the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner's regularization shall be considered by the competent authority in the light of observations made hereinabove and the relevant rules as well as Government orders, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. While considering the matter the average of recovery for four Faslis shall be taken into consideration for determining whether it is 70% or not. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The record of Writ Petition No. 1310 of 2015 (SS) be delinked." In fact the order impugned herein is similar to the orders which were impugned in Writ Petition No. 5427(SS) of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2793(SS) of 2016 which have already been disposed of by this Court in favour of the petitioners. The record of Writ Petition No. 1310 of 2015 (SS) be delinked." In fact the order impugned herein is similar to the orders which were impugned in Writ Petition No. 5427(SS) of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2793(SS) of 2016 which have already been disposed of by this Court in favour of the petitioners. As the only ground on which the claim of the petitioner for being considered for regularization as Collection Peon is the ban imposed by the State Government, the same having already been dealt with in the judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 referred herein above and as regular appointment under Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 which is a statutory provision and can not be over-ridden by government orders or executive fiat, therefore, the impugned order is, hereby, quashed. In view of the above, let the claim of the petitioners be reconsidered for regular appointment as Seasonable Collection Peons by the competent authority in the light of the observations made herein above after considering their claim for relaxation in age as per the policy and rules of the Government on the subject, keeping in mind the relevant conditions for entitlement to such regular appointment within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. As far as relief no. 1 is concerned, the petitioners may maintain a separate writ petition in this regard. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs." Considering the fact that the facts and issued are similar, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment with the benefit of the observations/ directions contained therein to the petitioners herein also, by quashing the impugned order, as, the same can not be sustained for the reasons already mentioned in the said judgment. It is also not out of place to mention and as pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that now there has been an amendment in the Rules of 2004 in the year 2016, therefore, in any case the said ban does not survive. The said Rule shall also be taken into consideration while compliance of this judgment. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.