JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.

Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4.

2. At the very outset, the learned Standing Counsel submits that present writ petition may be disposed of finally without filing a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has no objection to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by respondent-3, the Collector, Jaunpur (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) whereby, representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2011 filed pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2021 has been rejected.

4. Record shows that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin. He worked as such in different faslies. The State Government in order to mitigate the grievances of Seasonal Collection Amin promulgated the Rules known as the U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules 1974. The said rules were amended in the year 2013, whereby it was provided that 35% of the vacancy in the cadre of Collection Amins were to be filled from Seasonal Collection Amins.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfilled the prescribed criteria under the Rule for regularization/appointment as Seasonal Collection Amin yet his claim was not considered. He accordingly approached this Court by means Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15851 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 others. The same was finally disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2021. For ready reference order dated 01.12.2021 is reprodeuced herein-under:

"Heard Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities.

Present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

"(I) 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 35% quota of Rule 5 of U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974 as amended by time to time, after correcting the Seniority List suitable place in the Seniority List, considering the judgment passed in case of Pankaj Srivastava which is reported in 2013 (11) ADJ 473 and also considering the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54923/2017, Deoki Nandan v. State of U.P. and others, which was decided by this Hon'ble Court, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 after giving the joining to the petitioners on the post of collection Amin to give the notional seniority to the petitioner when the juniors than the petitioner were given joining, also pay the arrears of salary and current salary month to month."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of having eligibility his case was not considered for regularization on the post of Collection Amin. He submits that his case is liable to be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava, 2013 (11) ADJ 473 wherein it was opined that 'satisfactory service' would mean that in last four fasals, Seasonal Collection Amins should have attained recovery with the prescribed norms of at least 70%. Expression 'last four fasals' would mean last four fasals out of total number of fasals in which he has worked.