Allowed

Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 04 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023WRIA/5860/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his exclusion from a regularization list for Seasonal Collection Amins, where his eligible name was replaced by that of an ineligible third party. Finding no rational justification for this clerical error, the Court directed a fresh assessment by the District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Permission is granted to file a detailed representation within three weeks for the District Magistrate of Siddharth Nagar to re-assess the petitioner's case and take a fresh decision within four weeks

Ghanshyam Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 04… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5860 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent, despite the service on him being complete.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 insofar as it relates to the petitioner and further a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Collection Amin in pursuance of Government Order dated 22.02.2018 whereby the petitioner was granted age relaxation.

¶8

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case, certain facts are being noted first.

¶9

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin on 09.05.1995 and after having worked for four years, nine months and twenty five days and complying with the recovery norm made in last four Fasli Years, the petitioner was eligible for being regularized on the post of Collection Amin.

¶10

The respondents-authorities did not take any action for regularization and in the meantime, the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years and had completed more than 30 Fasli Years and was eligible for regular

¶11

¶12

appointment, but it was not done in terms of Section 17-A of the U.P. Seasonal Collecton Amin Rules, 1974. A seniority-list was prepared by the respondent-authority in the year 2016 for giving effect of the amended Rule by which 85% of Seasonal Collection Amins were to be regularized as per the prescribed standard and 15% posts of Seasonal Collection Amins were to be filled up by promotion. In furtherance of the aforesaid exercise, a seniority list was prepared where the petitioner was placed at S.No.19. Later, in order to proceed with the regularization of Seasonal Collection Amin, a Committee was constituted whereby 22 Seasonal Collection Amins were shortlisted also included the petitioner and found eligible for regularization. However, since 16 Seasonal Collection Amins including the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years, hence, the matter was forwarded to the State Government for seeking age relaxation.

¶13

It is only on 30.10.2017 that the respondent No.1 withdrew the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 and this aspect came to be challenged before this Court by several Seasonal Collection Amins through a bunch of writ petitions with leading writ petition bearing WRIT-A No.54923/2017 – Deoki Nandan and 17 others v. State of U.P. and others , which came to be allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 28.05.2018. The petitioner along with others also approached this Court by preferring WritA No.24781/2018 – Ram Pyare and 11 others v. State of U.P. and others , wherein they were also granted the benefits of the case of Deoki Nandan (supra).

¶14

The State Government in light of the decision of this Court in Deoki Nandan (supra) sought information regarding the selection of Seasonal

¶15

¶16

Collection Amins in the districts. Insofar as the District of Siddharth Nagar is concerned, with which the petitioner is concerned, 14 posts of Seasonal Collection Amins were shown as vacant.

¶17

It is also stated that the selection process was completed on 25.11.2016 and the names of selected Seasonal Collection Amins, who were found eligible for regularization their names had already been sent for seeking relaxation of age.

¶18

It is thus urged, that in pursuance of the exercise taken by the State Government after the decision of Deoki Nandan (supra) fresh data was collected and it is in view thereof that the respondent No.3 formed Selection Committee and amongst 14 persons selected 13 were the persons, who were coming down from the list of 20 but excluded the petitioner and in his place the name of the respondent No.5 Subhash Chandra was inserted though he was not selected in the year 2016 nor his name was sent for relaxation in age. It is in this view of the matter that the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶19

The State Government has filed its counter affidavit through the Naib Tehsildar dated 01.07.2022 wherein in Paragraph-5, it is stated that in terms of the Government Order dated 22.02.2019 only such Amins, who had crossed the age of 45 years, but whose work and character/performance had been satisfactory and possessed eligibility for being so regularized in accordance with second proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin’s Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2015 were considered.

¶20

¶21

It is further pointed out that that insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, he did not meet the requisite criteria as the collection of the petitioner was merely 37.75% in the last 4 Fasli Years whereas the cut off was an average of 70% in the last 4 Fasli Years. It has further been pointed out that the respondent No.5 had 60:25% and both were not eligible for regularization.

¶22

It has further been pointed out by the learned standing counsel that in the category list which was published on 26.02.2019, the name of the respondent No.5 found place at S.No.14 whereas the petitioner was at S.No.16 and for the said reason, he has not been regularized and for the aforesaid reasons, it is urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶24

The controversy as crystallized, is, to ascertain whether once in the year 2016, a selection list was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner was found at S.No.19 having worked for 4 years, 9 months and 25 days and his collection average was also above the minimum prescribed of 70% and was found eligible for regularization, later only on account of fact that the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years and the matter was referred to the State Government for age relaxation as already noticed then why the petitioner was left out and therefore the respondent No.5 also did not have the requisite collection average then how his name included in the list of 2019.

¶25

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the

¶26

¶27

selection list prepared in the year 2016, the respondent No.5 was not found eligible and he was placed at S.No.28 having worked for 4 years, 8 months and 11 days in contrast to the petitioner, who was placed at S.No.19 having worked for 4 years, 9 months and 25 days. The collection of the petitioner was higher than the respondent No.5. Even if at all fresh exercise was being undertaken, there was no justification for the State-Authorities to have regularized 14 persons and those 14 persons were the ones whose names were in the list of 2016 but excluded the petitioner’s name and the name of the respondent No.5 was forwarded whereas the name of the respondent No.5 did not find place in the list of 2016.

¶28

A specific query was put to the learned standing counsel to explain as to under what circumstances the name of the respondent No.5 was included by excluding the name of the petitioner for which no cogent reply was given except reference was made to Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit.

¶29

From a peursal of Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit filed by the State which only makes a mention that the collection average of the petitioner for the last 4 fasli years was below 70%. However, there was no explanation given by the learned standing counsel to impress that once in the year 2016 when the entire exercise was completed and a list was prepared, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2 wherein the name of the petitioner was at S.No.19 which also indicated that he had worked for 4 years, 7 months and 10 days and his average was much above the cut off of 70% and was also much above that of the respondent No.5, who was placed at S.No.22.

¶30

Learned standing counsel could not demonstrate that even the list

¶31

¶32

which was sent for seeking age relaxation, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3 indicated that the name of the petitioner was at S.No.12 but it did not include the name of the respondent No.5 then in what circumstances, the respondent No.5 was included in the subsequent list which is impugned in the writ petition in the year 2019.

¶33

What this Court finds is that insofar as the issue of relaxation of age relating to the petitioner is concerned, the entire exercise had taken place in the year 2016 and the collection average of the petitioner was much above the prescribed the minimum 70% in the last 4 fasli years. The District Magistrate had specifically sent a list on 25.11.2016 for seeking relaxation in the age and in the said list, the name of respondent No.5 did not find a mention. Even in the counter affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the Stateauthorities that the respondent No.5 also did not have the requisite average over the 4 fasli years his collection average was below 70% and though it has been stated that he has not been selected, but his name finds mention in the impugned list dated 11.02.2019 which has been impugned in the instant petition and is on record as Annexure No.11.

¶34

From a perusal of Annexure No.11, it would indicate that it contains the names of 14 persons and if this list is compared to the list, which is on record as Annexure No.3, it would indicate that barring respondent No.5 all the 13 names are the ones which are in the list dated 25.11.2016. However, instead of the name of the petitioner who was placed at S.No.12 of the list dated 25.11.2016, his name is conspicuously absent and another name of the respondent No.5 has been inserted. The persons, who were lower in the seniority then the petitioner namely Gulam Haider, Gopal Kumar, Virendra

¶35

¶36

Kumar Tiwari their names also find place in the list of 2019 except the petitioner.

¶37

In absence of cogent explanation given by the State counsel nor it could be demonstrated from the record as to how the petitioner has been excluded and the respondent No.5 has been included. Though a counter affidavit has been filed and sworn by the Naib Tehsildar (who is not a responsible officer to explain the contrary) and in the counter affidavit, it has been indicated that the respondent No.5 has not been selected. Under these circumstances, this Court has no option but to issue a direction to the District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar to re-assess the case of the petitioner once again and for the aforesaid purpose the petitioner shall be permitted to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar within a period of three weeks from today and taking note of the aforesaid and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5, the District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar shall take a fresh decision within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with a fresh representation is placed before him.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed to the above

¶39

extend. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Order Date :- 01.02.2023 Rakesh/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 04 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and 04 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

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priti Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Manju Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivakant Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Swati Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others