Dismissed

Ram Naresh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019WRIA/16253/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought appointment as Seasonal Collection Amins. The court noted previous directions restricting engagement of inexperienced staff and a directive against re-engaging those appointed after a cut-off date. Dismissing the petition, the court found no grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking direction for appointment as Seasonal Collection Amin was dismissed.

Ram Naresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16253 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Naresh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

3. This petition has been filed praying for a direction to be issued to the District Magistrate, Etah to appoint the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amins at Tehsil-Jalesar, District Etah.

¶8

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 was initially appointed on 21.01.2008 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were initially appointed in March, 2016 as Seasonal Collection Amin.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the vacancies in the establishment of Season Collection Amins and there are no senior Season Collection Amins available. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Season Collection Amins. The petitioners have submitted their representation before the District Magistrate on 07.08.2019 but till date no order has been passed thereon. The appointing authority on the other hand by misinterpreting by various Government Orders has put an embargo upon the engagement of the petitioners. This Court has directed to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

6. The learned Standing Counsel has received instructions in this case. A copy of such instructions dated 08.11.2019 signed by the S.D.M. Jalesar, District-Etah has been produced before this Court. In the said instructions, it has been informed that Ram Naresh S/o Bhagwati Prasad who was the writ petitioner in writ petition no.16253 of 2019 was appointed as Season Collection Amins on 12.02.2008.

¶11

7. This Court had issued some directions on the basis of which a Government Order was issued on 20.06.2019 for disengagement of 17 Season Collection Amins and for taking action against the officials responsible for engaging them. It

¶12

also appears from the instructions that by a Government Order No.2159/17 of 2001 dated 29.08.2001 the engagement of fresh and inexperienced Season Collection Amins was stopped w.e.f. 01.04.2001. The petitioners were appointed admittedly in 2008 and 2016. After the judgment of this Court in writ petition no.54923 of 2017 Dewaki Nandan and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 28.05.2018, a Government Order No. 487/I-7-2019-Ra-7 dated 20.06.2019 was issued from the Rajaswa Anubhag-7 to initiate action against all officials responsible of various districts where it was found that new and inexperienced Season Collection Amins had been engaged after the cut-off date of 01.04.2001.

¶13

8. In pursuance of the said Government Order, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that there were at least 14 districts including Etah where Season Collection Amins were engaged who were fresh and inexperienced. A total of 74 such inexperienced Season Collection Amins were engaged after 01.04.2001. In District-Etah alone there were 17 such engagements including that of the petitioners. Therefore, the District Magistrate has directed that such Season Collection Amins who were engaged after 01.04.2001 be not re-engaged in the coming season and action be taken against the officials who were responsible for such irregularity.

¶14

9. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in this writ petition.

¶15

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 C. MANI

Ram Naresh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nattho Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Surendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sabir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Laxmi Devi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ayaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others