Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Collection Peon has been rejected
confirming selection and appointment of
respondent no. 4 for such appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he has not been selected
for substantive appointment on the post of
Collection Peon on the ground that in the
Fasali years 1410, 1411, 1412 and 1413
the percentage of recovery was 15.5, 75,
16.9 and 23.4 respectively resulting in
average recovery of 32.7 though as per
U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules,
2004") the average recovery ought to have
been at least 70%. The respondent no. 4
who was admittedly junior to the
petitioner but his recovery having been
noticed above 70% in the said Fasali
years, was selected and given
appointment to the post of Collection
Peon. It is submitted that under Rule 5 of
Rules, 2004 the criteria for selection for
regular appointment to the post of
Collection Peon in respect to Seasonal
Collection Peon is satisfactory service in
the last at least four "Fasals". The
explanation thereof further provides that
satisfactory service means good conduct
shown from beginning and in the last
"four Fasals" he has cooperated for
making recovery at least to the extend of
70% as prescribed by the Government. He
contended that the respondents no. 1 to 3
have erred in considering the record of
preceding four Fasali years instead of four
Fasals. Further that the petitioner has not
been found guilty or lacking coordination
or cooperation in making recovery to the
extent of 70% but since the recovery as a
matter of fact was less than 70% for that
purpose the petitioner has been
superseded. He pointed that Rule 5 of
Rule, 2004 required only cooperation on
the part of the petitioner since the
recovery as a matter of fact is the primary
duty of the Collection Amin to whom a
Collection Peon assist and, therefore, the
relevant considerations as contemplated
and provided in the Rules, 2004 have not
been taken into account.
4. Learned Standing Counsel relying
on his counter affidavit, however,
supported the selection of respondent no.
4 as well as the impugned order passed by
the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas
Nagar (Bhadohi) and said that the same
has been passed in accordance with law.
5. Having considered the rival
submissions as well as the record I find
that the only issue up for consideration in
this case is whether the petitioner has
been considered and rejected for the post
of Collection Peon on relevant
considerations as provided under Rule 5
or not.
6. Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 reads as under:
^^5- lsok esa fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa ds inksa ij HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr
lzksrksa ls dh tk;sxh%&
¼,d½ ipkl izfr'kr p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls lh/kh HkrhZ
}kjk]
¼nks½ ipkl izfr'kr in ,sls lkef;d laxzg vuqlsodksa esa ls
ftUgksaus de ls de pkj Qlyha rd larks"ktud dk;Z fd;k
gks vkSj ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks ftlesa
p;u fd;k tk; 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks] p;u lfefr ds
ek/;e ls Hkjs tk;sxsaA
ijUrq ;fn mi;qZDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gks rks [k.M
¼,d ½ ds v/khu 'ks"k fjfDr;ka lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjh tk;sxhaA
Li"Vhdj.k%& larks"ktud dk;Z dk rkRi;Z gksxk 'kq: ls vUr
rd vPNs vkpj.k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vfUre pkj
Qlyksa ds nkSjku ljdkj }kjk fu;r fofgr Lrj ds vuqlkj
de ls de lRrj izfr'kr olwyh esa iw.kZ lg;ksx iznku
djukA**
7. A perusal of Rules shows that a
Seasonal Collection Peon if has