SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Suresh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ (A) No. 2874 of 2010
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: A.P. Singh, Amarendra Pratap Singh.

Headnote:

U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 - Rule 15, 5(1), (ii) - Right to Information Act, 2005 - U.P. Collection Peon's Service Rules, 2016 - Regular appointment has been denied - Regularization on posts - Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing impugned order – Held, Objection taken by learned Senior counsel for petitioner that persons junior to petitioner have been considered and appointed on post of Collection Peon under 50% quota, it is apparent on perusal of record that in final seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peons of Tehsil BKT, name of petitioner finds place at Sr. No. 13 and person, who is at S. No. 12 in said list, has worked more than 01 year 05 months and 01 day than petitioner, therefore, services rendered by petitioner even including services rendered at Tehsil Malihabad i.e. 48 days is less than him, therefore, there appears to be no irregularity or illegality in impugned order contained as Annexure-1 to writ petition - Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent-State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.09.2009, contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition with a further prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 to consider afresh and appoint the petitioner on the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota by counting the service rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow from the due date with all benefits of service.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:

S. No.

Relevant Facts of the Case

(a)

The petitioner was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow on 11.02.1991.

(b)

In the year 1995, a new Tehsil known as Bakshi Ka Talab (BKT), Lucknow was carved out, as a result of which, the area of the petitioner, where he was working as Seasonal Collection Peon fell in the area of newly created Tehsil.

(c)

The petitioner worked as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil BKT and had completed more than four fasals. Therefore, he is fully eligible for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota.

(d)

On 14.07.2008, Writ Petition No. 6793 (S/S) of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, which was finally disposed of by commanding the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota.

(e)

On 05.02.2010, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed as infructuous as respondent No. 2 had passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment to the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota.

(f)

Vide impugned order dated 03.09.2009, respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota.

(g)

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 03.09.2009 has been passed without any rhyme and reason and is malafide in nature and without any authority of law. He submitted that the impugned order is not legally sustainable as respondent No. 2 has not computed the service rendered by the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Malihabad, District Lucknow, however, the same is obligatory in view of Rule 15 of U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004.

5. He next submitted that the impugned order dated 03.09.2009 has been passed on surmises and conjectures and on the basis of imagination. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his claim for regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota by counting the services rendered by him as Seasonal Collection Peon.

6. He further submitted that the persons junior to the petitioner have been considered and appointed on the post of Collection Peon under 50% quota, however, regular appointment has been denied to the petitioner on extraneous consideration.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that on 03.09.2009, a selection committee was constituted, which considered the cases of Seasonal Collection Peons for selection as Collection Peons and passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2009, which is just and valid.

8. He further submitted that in Tehsil BKT and District Lucknow, there are 29 sanctioned posts of Collection Peons out of which, 18 Collection Peons were workin

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top