JUDGMENT : 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following amongst other relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.3 to consider the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin under Rule 5 of U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court." 2. It has been averred that the petitioner is working as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Robertsgang, district Sonbhadra and has completed the target as given to him by the respondent authorities without any complaint. It has been further averred that regularization of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin under 35% quota in terms of the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 has not been considered till date pursuant to Rule 5 of U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) through the petitioner has achieved the target of 74.62% in 4 fasals in the year 2016. His name finds place at serial no. 29 of the seniority list dated 28.6.2016 prepared as per Rules 17 and 17-A of the Rules. Hence the present writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus for issuing a direction to the respondents to consider regularization of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 5 of the Rules the work of the petitioner is not only satisfactory but has also achieved his target of more than 70% as prescribed therein and his age being less than 45 years is fit for consideration for regularization on the said post. 4. Rebutting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel states that the petitioner has not achieved the target of 70% for the 4 fasals and, therefore, his claim for regularization on the post of Collection Amin has not been considered. 5. The Court has perused the records. 6. 4. Rebutting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel states that the petitioner has not achieved the target of 70% for the 4 fasals and, therefore, his claim for regularization on the post of Collection Amin has not been considered. 5. The Court has perused the records. 6. The records reveal that for regularization of service of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin as per Rule 5 of the Rules the work of the petitioner should be satisfactory in the last 4 fasals and collection should be attained recovery within the prescribed norms, i.e. at least 70% whereas in the case in hand the petitioner has attained recovery of 74.62% as well as his work is also satisfactory. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Pankaj Srivastava ( 2013 (11) ADJ 473 has an occasion to consider the similar controversy and came to the conclusion that 'last four fasals' would mean all fasals in which a Seasonal Collection Amin has worked and does not mean merely the four immediately preceding fasals. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below: "In assessing the submission, which is urged on behalf of the State, Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, as it held the field at the material time, has to be interpreted. As noted earlier, the Rule contemplates regularization of the Seasonal Collection Amins against 35% of the vacancies. The Rule prescribes the following conditions, namely, (i) the Seasonal Collection Amins must have rendered satisfactory work in at least four fasals; and (ii) the Seasonal Collection Amins should not have attained the age of 45 years by the 1st July of the relevant year. The explanation states that 'satisfactory service' would mean that in the last four fasals, the Seasonal Collection Amins should have attained the recovery in accordance with the prescribed norms of at least 70%. Now the explanation has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision which is made in the Rules of 1974. The requirement of the Rules is that the Seasonal Collection Amins should have worked for at least four fasals. Now the explanation has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision which is made in the Rules of 1974. The requirement of the Rules is that the Seasonal Collection Amins should have worked for at least four fasals. Where a Seasonal Collection Amin has worked for more than four fasals, in assessing whether he has rendered satisfactory performance within the meaning of the explanation, the extent of recovery has to be assessed with reference to the last four fasals during which he has worked. In a situation where the Seasonal Collection Amin has worked for only four fasals, obviously the recovery has to be assessed with reference to those four fasals. Hence, the expression 'last four fasals' would mean the last four fasals out of the total number of fasals in which the Seasonal Collection Amin has worked. The last four fasals does not mean that the Seasonal Collection Amin must be actually working on the date on which the Selection Committee applies its mind to the claim for regularization. Such a condition is not found in the Rules and to introduce such a condition, would amount to a modification or amendment of the statutory rule, which is impermissible for this Court. The Rule has to be read as it stands. The learned Single Judge was, in our opinion, correct in holding that the ground which has weighed with the Selection Committee was extraneous to the Rules. ". 8. This Court in the case of Suresh Chand Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 315 ; has held as follows: "7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the only ground in the impugned order is that the petitioner has failed to achieve 70% target hence his regularization has been rejected. It is stated that the said view taken by the authority concerned is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. He has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. State of U.P. & others v. Pankaj Srivastava, Special Appeal Defective No. 845 of 2013, decided on 03.12.2013; 2. Pankaj Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(34) LCD 691; 3. Molhey Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(31) LCD 2367 . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that in the year 1997 some of the juniors of the petitioner were regularized. Pankaj Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(34) LCD 691; 3. Molhey Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(31) LCD 2367 . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that in the year 1997 some of the juniors of the petitioner were regularized. At that point of time the average of recovery percentage of the petitioner was 79%. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a chart prepared in 2004 for regularisation of Seasonal Collection Amins, wherein the average recovery of Seasonal Collection Amins is recorded. In the said chart the petitioner's average recovery is 79%. This fact is also stated by the petitioner in paragraph- 12 of the petition. He has also drawn my attention to paragraph-9 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that some juniors, namely Suresh Kumar and Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who had only 35% recovery, were regularized without considering the case of the petitioner. In support of the said averment the petitioner has brought on record a document as annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is also stated that Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who is junior to the petitioner, has been illegally regularized. He did not fulfill the norms of four fasli and he had completed only three fasli even then he has been regularized. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited attention of the Court to the reply of the statement of fact made in paragraph 9 & 12 of the writ petition, in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, the said fact has not been specifically denied, only a general and evasive reply is given therein. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner's writ petition is not maintainable as his earlier writ petition was dismissed and in the review petition only liberty was granted to file a representation. No other submission has been made. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 12. Concededly, the petitioner is working since 1989. The Rule-5 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 provides that 35% appointment on the post of Collection Amins shall be made from the Seasonal Collection Amins. The petitioner has brought on record his previous recovery percentage which indicates that in the year 2004 when the list was prepared his name was at Sl. The Rule-5 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 provides that 35% appointment on the post of Collection Amins shall be made from the Seasonal Collection Amins. The petitioner has brought on record his previous recovery percentage which indicates that in the year 2004 when the list was prepared his name was at Sl. No. 20 and his average recovery percentage was above 77%. There is no reason in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit why the petitioner was not considered at that point of time. The Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 is in the following terms: **izfrcU/k ;g gS fd iSarhl izfr'kr fjfDr;kWa ,sls lhtuy dysD'ku vehuksa esa ls p;u }kjk Hkjh tk;saxh& d& ftUgksaus de ls de pkj Qlyksa rd lUrks"ktud :i ls dk;Z fd;k gks; [k& ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks] ftl o"kZ p;u fd;k tk;] 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks% izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd ;fn mi;qDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gksa rks 'ks"k fjfDr;kWa lh/kh HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk Hkjh tk;saxh Li"Vhdj.k& lUrks"ktud dk;Z dk rkRi;Z gksxk 'kq: ls vUr rd vPNs vkpj.k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vfUre pkj Qlyksa ds nkSjku fofgr Lrj ds vuqlkj de ls de lRrj izfr'kr olwyhA^^ 13. The aforesaid Rule provides the regularization of seasonal collection amins against 35% of vacancies. It contemplates following conditions: (i) The seasonal collection amin must have rendered services in at least four fasli; (ii) He should not be above 45 years by the first July of the relevant year. 14. It is true that the explanation of the Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 refers the satisfactory services in the last four fasli with the prescribed norms of at least seventy percent. The prescribed percentage of the target of the recovery came to be considered in several cases before this Court, way back in the year 2001. A similar issue fell for consideration in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana v. Collector, Azamgarh and others, (2001) 1 UPLBEC 867 . In the said case the Court held that there may be various factors and reasons when total extent of recovery in a seasonal amin's area may not be achieved, such as Government itself kept the recovery in abeyance due to natural calamity. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under: "Necessary pleadings on this aspect are wanting. In the said case the Court held that there may be various factors and reasons when total extent of recovery in a seasonal amin's area may not be achieved, such as Government itself kept the recovery in abeyance due to natural calamity. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under: "Necessary pleadings on this aspect are wanting. Even the Counter Affidavit does not disclose that no person in the list prepared in the year 1993 has been regularised whose recovery was below the prescribed limit or that all persons above such regularized persons were inefficient and or had poor efficiency on comparison. This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the petitioner was low for reason other than this own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering the efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons likeorders from Court, the total extent of recovery to be made in one's area and/or whether Government itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency." 15. The judgment in Dinesh Kumar Asthana (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar v. Collector/ District Magistrate, Mainpuri and others, 2001(3) ESC 1325; Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56124 of 2009; Molhey Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(31) LCD 2367 ; Ramveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ- A No. 27358 of 2004. 16. In the case of State of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava, Special Appeal Defective No. 845 of 2013 also the similar issue was raised. In the said case the claim of seasonal collection amin for regularization was rejected on the ground that he failed to achieve 70% prescribed norms for recovery. The Court held that the explanation of the said Rule-5 has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision which is made in the Rules, 1974. In the said case the claim of seasonal collection amin for regularization was rejected on the ground that he failed to achieve 70% prescribed norms for recovery. The Court held that the explanation of the said Rule-5 has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision which is made in the Rules, 1974. The principal requirement under the Rules was that a seasonal collection amin should have worked for at least four fasli and the extent of recovery needs to be assessed with reference to last four fasli during the period when he worked. The relevant part of the order reads as under: "...However, the norms of 70% recovery, as clarified, must relate to the demand which was actually entrusted to the employee. The satisfactory performance has to be read with reference to the work, which is actually entrusted to the Seasonal Collection Amin. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that in the memo of appeal, the State has taken a ground that the respondent would not meet the norms of 70% with reference to the work which was entrusted to him." 17. The principle of law emanates from the above decision is that the recovery depends upon various factors and only recovery cannot be made sole criterion. It has to be considered along with other requirements mentioned in the Rules. 18. The explanation of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 has been harmoniously interpreted by this Court in a large number of cases. Reference of some of such cases has already been given hereinabove. The authorities have not paid due attention to the law laid down by this Court and they are rejecting the claim repeatedly on the same ground which has been held to be untenable by this Court long back in the year 2001. 19. I find that most of the claims of regularization of seasonal collection amins are primarily rejected on the ground of less recovery thus it is clear that the authorities do not consider the entire Rules and they have laid emphasis only on the explanation of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 and not on the main provision. 20. The Collector is a senior and experienced official and he must be presumed to know that the orders of the High Court have to be obeyed, such is our constitutional scheme. 20. The Collector is a senior and experienced official and he must be presumed to know that the orders of the High Court have to be obeyed, such is our constitutional scheme. Ignoring the consistent view taken by this Court in the last more than 15 years, cannot be appreciated. If a law has been settled by a superior Court, the good governance requires that the officials must respect the law. The Rule of Law is foundation of a democratic society, and the judiciary is undoubtedly guardian of the Rule of Law. 21. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta and another v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1962 SC 1893 has held that the law laid down by the High Court is binding on all authorities. The Supreme Court has also held that although there is no provision for the High Court in the constitution like Article 141 which provides that the judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on all authorities whether they are party or not. The Supreme Court has extended principles of Article 141 of the Constitution to the High Court also. Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s East India Commercial (supra) is extracted herein below: "29...We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. If that be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction." 22. In view of the above, it is clear that if the law has been laid down by the Court, the authority is bound by it whether he is party in the said writ petition or not. Since the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned case has not been followed by the authority concerned and neither the judgments have been referred, the said order, as I find, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 is set aside." 9. Since the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned case has not been followed by the authority concerned and neither the judgments have been referred, the said order, as I find, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 is set aside." 9. Further this Court in Writ A No. 16121 of 2017 (Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P.) decided on 27.3.2019 had an occasion to allow the writ petition in terms of Pankaj Srivastava (supra), which reads as under: “In light of these principles as enunciated by the Division Bench, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the order impugned. It was incumbent upon the District Magistrate in terms of the relevant rules to evaluate and consider the working of the petitioner in all previous fasals and not merely the four immediately preceding fasals. Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 31 January 2017 shall hereby stand quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to be District Magistrate for reevaluation of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. The District Magistrate shall endeavour to conclude the exercise of consideration with expedition and communicate a final decision to the petitioner in respect of his claim for absorption preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.” 10. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Court grant liberty to the petitioner to move a detailed representation along with a certified copy of this order for redressal of his grievances taking all possible grounds with supported documents before the respondent no.3, who shall decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. 11. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits and the respondent no.3 is at liberty to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.