JUDGMENT By the Court.—The appellants, who are all seasonal collection amins, were seeking absorption in terms of the provisions of the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. Claiming consideration by virtue of the provisions of the second proviso to Rule 5, the appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition (No. 18237 of 2000) which came to be disposed of on 14 February 2011 calling upon the Collector & District Magistrate to consider their claim for regular appointment against the 35 % quota as provided under the 1974 Rules. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the Collector turned down the claim of the appellants by an order dated 19 September 2011. This order formed subject-matter of challenge in the writ proceedings from which the present appeal emanates. The learned Single Judge has negatived the contention of the appellants that they were entitled to a regular appointment against the 35% quota. Hence the present appeal. 2. The order of 19 September 2011, negatived the claim of the appellants on the ground that there were no vacancies against which the appellants could be offered regular appointment. The order records that the total strength of Collection Amins in district Ballia was 115. It held that applying the quota to the total strength of the district it was apparent that only 5 vacancies existed. In the selection process, three candidates belonging to the Other Backward Class and one candidate belonging to the general category were offered regular appointment. One post had been left vacant and was liable to be filled by a candidate belonging to the Other Backward Classes. The appellants not falling in the zone of eligibility were accordingly not offered appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the rules as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin’s Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules 2015 envisage a reservation of 35% of the vacancies being earmarked to be filled from amongst seasonal collection amins. It was submitted that the number of seasonal collection amins who were liable to be absorbed and granted regular appointment must necessarily be worked out by applying the quota of 35% to the vacancies as existing at the time of recruitment. It was submitted that the number of seasonal collection amins who were liable to be absorbed and granted regular appointment must necessarily be worked out by applying the quota of 35% to the vacancies as existing at the time of recruitment. It was contended that the Collector & District Magistrate has clearly erred in working out the number of vacancies liable to be offered to seasonal collection amins by applying the quota to the total number of posts in the district. 4. We are unable to appreciate or accept the above submission. Upon a holistic reading of the provisions of Rule 5, we are of the opinion that the Collector has correctly applied the 35% quota with reference to the total number of posts of collection amins in the district. 5. Rule 5 lays forth the process for recruitment to posts in the service. The expression “service” has been defined under the Rules to mean ‘the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins’ Service’. The expression “substantive appointment” has been explained to mean an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment on a post in the cadre of the service. Upon a conjoint reading of the above provisions it is apparent that the 35% quota envisaged under the second proviso to Rule 5 must necessarily be applied to the entire cadre strength, comprising the total number of collection amins in the district. Accepting the submission of the appellant, would clearly lead to a situation where the percentage of vacancies which are liable to be set apart for seasonal collection amins itself being exceeded and breached. 6. Our conclusion that the second proviso to Rule 5 clearly relates to the total cadre strength of the cadre in district is further fortified from a reading of the fourth proviso to Rule 5 which stands introduced by virtue of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin’s Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules 2015. The fourth proviso reads as follows: “Provided further that after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin’s Service (Seventh) Amendment Rules, 2015, only as one time measure, 85 per cent of the existing vacancies on the date of commencement of these rules, shall be filled by selection, from amongst such seasonal collection amins who possessed requisite qualifications as prescribed in second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5.” (emphasis supplied) 7. A reading of the fourth proviso clearly shows where the rule making authority sought to link the percentage of seats to the existing vacancies for being offered to seasonal collection amins, a clear and unambiguous provision was made in respect thereof. It is for this reason that the fourth proviso links the percentage to ‘existing vacancies’. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the learned Single Judge was correct in his conclusion that the 35% quota is to be worked out with reference to the total cadre strength of collection amins and could not be made to depend upon the fluctuating number of vacancies that may be available at different points of time. We are in agreement with the conclusion and findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge on this score and in consequence find no merit in the present Special Appeal. 9. We however clarify that neither this order nor the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge would come in the way of the consideration of the claim of the appellants in light of the fourth proviso to Rule 5 which earmarks 85% of the existing vacancies to be filled by selection from amongst such seasonal collection amins who possess the requisite qualifications. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. 11. The Special Appeals stands disposed of. ——————