# Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-04
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2874 of 2010
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-50417
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 - Rule
5(1) - 15 - Group -D Employees Service
Rules, 1985 - U.P. Collection Peons
Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016
- 2nd proviso to substituted Rule 5(ii) - The
post of Seasonal Collection Peon is a Class
IV / Group -D post under the service of
the State, therefore, the minimum age
limit
prescribed
for
Class
IV
post
employees in Group -D Employees Service
Rules, 1985 shall be applicable and
accordingly, in no manner the services
rendered by the petitioner prior to his
attaining the age of majority can be taken
into account. (Para 27)

In the present case, it is clear that the
petitioner has worked only for a period of one
year three months and six days in Tehsil BKT.
He worked as Seasonal Collection Peon
between the period 11-02-1991 and 11-031991 for a period of one month and eighteen
days in Tehsil Malihabad. The date of birth of
the petitioner as mentioned in High School
Certificate is 23-03-1977, therefore, at the
time when he started working at Tehsil
Malihabad, he was minor and thus, the period
of
service
rendered
by
him
at
Tehsil
Malihabad cannot be calculated in the working
period of the petitioner, therefore, the
petitioner has worked for 3 & 1/2 fasali years.
Even if the period provided herein above is
also included in the working of the petitioner,
the seniority position of the petitioner will not
be altered. (Para 26, 27)

It is apparent on perusal of record that
persons junior to the petitioner have not
been considered and appointed on the
post of Collection Peon under 50%
quota. In the final seniority list of Seasonal
Collection
Peons
of
Tehsil
BKT
dated
02.09.2009, name of the petitioner finds place
at Sr. No. 13 and the person, namely, Ram
Kishore, who is at Sr. No. 12 in the said list,
has worked more than 01 year 05 months and
01 day than the petitioner, therefore, services
rendered by the petitioner even including the
services rendered at Tehsil Malihabad i.e. 48
days is less than him, therefore, there
appears to be no irregularity or illegality in
the impugned order dated 03.09.2009. (Para
28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges order dated
03.09.2009, passed by Respondent No. 2
and
prays
for
direction
to
the
respondents 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.

## Text

276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award, shall be paid in account through a
bank instrument or electronic transfer, as
permissible under the rules or as per
directions of the Tribunal on the execution
side.

32. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 2874 of 2010

Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.P. Singh, Amarendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Regularisation - U.P.
Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 - Rule
5(1) - 15 - Group -D Employees Service
Rules, 1985 - U.P. Collection Peons
Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016
- 2nd proviso to substituted Rule 5(ii) - The
post of Seasonal Collection Peon is a Class
IV / Group -D post under the service of
the State, therefore, the minimum age
limit
prescribed
for
Class
IV
post
employees in Group -D Employees Service
Rules, 1985 shall be applicable and
accordingly, in no manner the services
rendered by the petitioner prior to his
attaining the age of majority can be taken
into account. (Para 27)

In the present case, it is clear that the
petitioner has worked only for a period of one
year three months and six days in Tehsil BKT.
He worked as Seasonal Collection Peon
between the period 11-02-1991 and 11-031991 for a period of one month and eighteen
days in Tehsil Malihabad. The date of birth of
the petitioner as mentioned in High School
Certificate is 23-03-1977, therefore, at the
time when he started working at Tehsil
Malihabad, he was minor and thus, the period
of
service
rendered
by
him
at
Tehsil
Malihabad cannot be calculated in the working
period of the petitioner, therefore, the
petitioner has worked for 3 & 1/2 fasali years.
Even if the period provided herein above is
also included in the working of the petitioner,
the seniority position of the petitioner will not
be altered. (Para 26, 27)

It is apparent on perusal of record that
persons junior to the petitioner have not
been considered and appointed on the
post of Collection Peon under 50%
quota. In the final seniority list of Seasonal
Collection
Peons
of
Tehsil
BKT
dated
02.09.2009, name of the petitioner finds place
at Sr. No. 13 and the person, namely, Ram
Kishore, who is at Sr. No. 12 in the said list,
has worked more than 01 year 05 months and
01 day than the petitioner, therefore, services
rendered by the petitioner even including the
services rendered at Tehsil Malihabad i.e. 48
days is less than him, therefore, there
appears to be no irregularity or illegality in
the impugned order dated 03.09.2009. (Para
28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges order dated
03.09.2009, passed by Respondent No. 2
and
prays
for
direction
to
the
respondents 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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amarendra
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
7 All. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
277
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:

Sr.
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
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 working
at the time of meeting of the said selection
committee. Out of 18 working Collection
Peons, one Collection Peon, namely, Sri
Rajvir is in jail and 6 Collection Peons are
working under the orders of this Court. 12
Collection Peons have been appointed
through direct recruitment and one directly
recruited Collection Peon, namely, Lt. Sri
Pramod Kumar died and on his place, his
wife Smt. Pratima Tewari has been granted
appointment.

9. He next submitted that under the
provisions contained under Rule 5(1) of
Rules of 2004, 50% posts of Collection
Peons are reserved for Seasonal Collection
Amins. Rule 5(ii) provides that recruitment
to the posts in service shall be made from
amongst such seasonal Collection Peons,
who have worked satisfactorily for at least
four fasalies and whose age on the first day
of July of the year in which selection is
made not exceeds 45 years.

10. He further submitted that as per
relevant government orders, 3% of the post
of sanctioned strength of Collection Peons
shall
have
been
kept
vacant
and
accordingly, in Tehsil BKT one post of
Collection Peon is kept vacant, therefore,
there are 10 vacancies against which
selection has to be made.

11. He submitted that the duly
constituted
selection
committee
has
considered the case of the petitioner for
selection on the post of Collection Peon
and found that the petitioner had worked
for the following period:

Service
Period
Working
Period
Fasali
Years
23-02-1996
to 31-021996
0 year - 1 month
- 06 days
1/2
25-05-1996
to 30-061996
01-09-1996
to 30-091996
0 year - 01
month - 27 days
0 year - 01
month - 0 days
1/2
06-01-1997
to 31-031997
0 year - 02
months - 27
days
1/2
05-08-1997
to 30-091997
0 year - 01
month - 27 days
1/2
16-01-1998
to 31-031998
0 year - 02
months - 16
days
1/2
14-07-2005
to 31-082005
0 year - 01
month - 13 days
1/2
22-01-2007
to 31-032007
0 year - 02
months - 10
days
1/2
7 All. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
279
Total:
01 years - 03
months - 06
days
3 & 1/2

He submitted that from aforesaid
chart, it is clear that the petitioner has
worked only for a period of one year three
months and six days in Tehsil BKT. He
worked as Seasonal Collection Peon
between the period 11-02-1991 and 11-031991 for a period of one month and
eighteen days in Tehsil Malihabad.

12. He further submitted that the date
of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in
High School Certificate is 23-03-1977,
therefore, at the time when the petitioner
started working at Tehsil Malihabad, he
was minor and thus, the period of service
rendered by him at Tehsil Malihabad
cannot be calculated in the working period
of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner
has worked for 3 & 1/2 fasali years.

13. In addition to aforesaid, he
submitted that even if the said period is
also included in the working of the
petitioner, the seniority position of the
petitioner will not be altered. The post of
Seasonal Collection Peon is a Class IV /
Group -D post under the service of the
State, therefore, the minimum age limit
prescribed for Class IV post employees in
Group -D Employees Service Rules, 1985
shall be applicable and accordingly, in no
manner the services rendered by the
petitioner prior to his attaining the age of
majority can be taken into account. He
submitted that the writ petition being
misconceived, is liable to be dismissed.

14. He further submitted that the
submission of learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner that persons junior to the
petitioner
have
been
considered
for
regularization is also misconceived. In this
regard, he has drawn attention of this Court
towards Annexure-CA2.

15. He next submitted that in the final
seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peons
of Tehsil BKT dated 02.09.2009, name of
the petitioner finds place at Sr. No.13 and
submitted that the person, namely, Ram
Kishore, who is at Sr. No.12 in the said list,
has worked more than 01 year 05 months
and 01 day than the petitioner and
therefore,
services
rendered
by
the
petitioner even including the services
rendered at Tehsil Malihabad i.e. 48 days is
less than him, therefore, no benefit can be
granted to the petitioner.

16. He lastly submitted that since
there are 10 posts of Seasonal Collection
Peon and if regular selection on 10 posts is
made, the petitioner will not be able to be
regularized finding place at Sr. No.13 in the
seniority list. He submitted that as per
Government
Order
dated
08.11.2006,
which provides criteria for regularization of
Seasonal Collection Peons provides that the
seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peons
shall be prepared on the basis of their
working days and it further provides that
the meaning of satisfactory service is
average 70% recovery in last four fasali
years and since case of the petitioner is not
covered under the said government order,
the selection committee has rightly not
recommended the name of the petitioner
for regular selection.

17. In rebuttal, on the basis of
rejoinder affidavit, submission of learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the
services rendered by the petitioner at Tehsil
Malihabad has not been taken into account
and his candidature has been wrongly
rejected by the selection committee. He
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further submitted that there is no minimum
or maximum age limit for engagement of
Seasonal Collection Peon. He added that if
the services rendered by the petitioner at
Tehsil Malihabad are taken into account, it
will come to 509 days and on the basis of
the same, case of the petitioner is liable to
be considered.

18. He further submitted that the
petitioner got information through Right to
Information Act, 2005 that there are 11
posts of Collection Peon available under
50% quota. He submitted that the statutory
rules
cannot
be
overrided
by
the
Government Order and selection of the
petitioner should be made on the basis of
statutory rules.

19.

In
reply
to
submissions
advanced by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, learned Additional CSC
submitted that in the 2nd proviso to
substituted Rule 5(ii) of U.P. Collection
Peons Service
(Second
Amendment)
Rules, 2016 it is provided that, "
....................... provided further that all
the existing vacancies available on the
date of commencement of U.P. Collection
Peon's
Service
(Second
Amendment)
Rules, 2016 shall, only as one time
measure, by filled by selection through
the selection committee from amongst
Seasonal Collection Peons, who possess
the requisite qualifications prescribed in
clause (ii) ....."

In
furtherance
of
the
said
provision the final seniority list at the
District Level was prepared and published,
wherein the petitioner's name finds place at
Sr. No.74. He submitted that the petitioner
has not filed any objection against the said
seniority list, therefore, the same attained
finality in the eyes of law.

20. He further submitted that in
Clause 2 of Government Order dated
08.09.2010, it has been prescribed that in
future no further recruitment on Class-IV
post (apart from Technical posts of Junior
Category) would be made and all the ClassIV post falling vacant would be filled by
out sourcing only. He submitted that a
prohibition on all the appointments (except
those to be made through Public Service
Commission and under order passed by
Hon'ble
Court)
was
imposed
vide
Government Order dated 15.03.2012 with
immediate
effect.
Subsequently,
a
relaxation from the Government Orders
dated 08.09.2010 and 15.03.2012 was
provided vide Government Order dated
07.10.2016
regarding
recruitment
of
Seasonal Collection Peons on the post of
Collection Peons to be made under
regularization quota as provided in U.P.
Collection Peon's Service Rules, 2004 as
amended in year 2016. Thereafter, a
Government Order dated 30.10.2017 was
also issued, whereby the age relaxation
provided under Government Order dated
30.05.2008 was quashed.

21. Thereafter, the Tehsildars of the
District Lucknow sought guidance from the
State Government for regularization of
Seasonal Collection Peons as Collection
Peons vide letter dated 14.03.2018 and a
reminder in this regard was also sent on
07.04.2018 and in pursuance thereof, the
State
Government
vide
letter
dated
13.06.2018 called a meeting on 10.04.2018
under the chairmanship of the Chief
Secretary, wherein it was decided that the
Seasonal Collection Amit is a Class - IV
post and it was provided earlier that the
Class - IV posts would be filled by way of
out sourcing only. The U.P. Collection
Peon's
Service
Rules,
2016
and
Government Order dated 07.10.2016 be
7 All. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
281
quashed and the Class - IV posts be filled
in accordance with Government Order
dated 08.02.2010.

22. In reply to aforesaid submissions,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that regularization of Seasonal
Collection Peons is to be made at Tehsil
level and not at District level. He submitted
that Government of U.P. vide Government
Order dated 26.02.2019 has provided that
rules continues to be in force and
Government
Order
dated
07.10.2016
continues to hold field and rules cannot be
changed by executive orders. He submitted
that
the
State
Government
vide
Government Orders dated 27.02.2019 and
22.02.2019
issued
directions
for
regularization of Seasonal Collection Peons
in accordance with rules and granted
relaxation in age and the petitioner has not
crossed the upper age limit.

23. In reply to aforesaid submissions,
learned Additional C.S.C. on the basis of
supplementary
counter
affidavit
dated
14.11.2022 submitted that a notification
dated 05.10.2016 has been issued by the
State Government providing hat 100%
regularization of Collection Peons will be
made
by
selection
through
selection
committee as a one time measure and in
pursuance
thereof,
on
the
basis
of
recommendations of selection committee,
selection of 48 Seasonal Collection Peons
has been made on 10.12.2020 and in
respect of regularization of 50% Collection
Peons under the provisions contained in the
rules, the consideration of the same is
possible only by the selection committee
constituted at district level.

24. He further submitted that the
petitioner has worked on different dates
and his name finds place at Sr. No.74 in
the district level seniority list and in
pursuance
of
Rules
of
2016,
the
proceeding for 100% regularization on 48
posts of Collection Peons has been made
and available Seasonal Collection Peons
up to Sr. No.62 in the seniority list have
been regularized.

25.

I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

26. On overall consideration of the
matter and on perusal of material on
record, it is reflected that from the chart
narrated above, it is clear that the
petitioner has worked only for a period of
one year three months and six days in
Tehsil BKT. He worked as Seasonal
Collection Peon between the period 11-021991 and 11-03-1991 for a period of one
month and eighteen days in Tehsil
Malihabad. The date of birth of the
petitioner as mentioned in High School
Certificate is 23-03-1977, therefore, at the
time when he started working at Tehsil
Malihabad, he was minor and thus, the
period of service rendered by him at
Tehsil Malihabad cannot be calculated in
the working period of the petitioner,
therefore, the petitioner has worked for 3
& 1/2 fasali years.

27. Even if the period provided
herein above is also included in the
working of the petitioner, the seniority
position of the petitioner will not be
altered. The post of Seasonal Collection
Peon is a Class IV / Group -D post under
the service of the State, therefore, the
minimum age limit prescribed for Class IV
post employees in Group -D Employees
Service Rules, 1985 shall be applicable
and accordingly, in no manner the services
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by the petitioner prior to his
attaining the age of majority can be taken
into account.

28. The objection taken by learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner that
persons junior to the petitioner have been
considered and appointed on the post of
Collection Peon under 50% quota, it is
apparent on perusal of record that in the
final seniority list of Seasonal Collection
Peons of Tehsil BKT dated 02.09.2009,
name of the petitioner finds place at Sr.
No.13 and the person, namely, Ram
Kishore, who is at Sr. No.12 in the said list,
has worked more than 01 year 05 months
and 01 day than the petitioner, therefore,
services rendered by the petitioner even
including the services rendered at Tehsil
Malihabad i.e. 48 days is less than him,
therefore,
there
appears
to
be
no
irregularity or illegality in the impugned
order dated 03.09.2009, contained as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

29. The writ petition lacks merit and
is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 282
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 3292 of 2023

Arvind Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravi Singh, Raj Kumar Singh Suryavanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

A. Service Law - Suspension - Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -Rule 4 - Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
(Removal
of
Difficulties)
Order 1981 - Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education (Services Selection Boards) Act,
1982 - Sections 18 & 33-C(2)(a) - It is the
duty of the State Government to find out
illegal
wealth
accumulated
by
a
government
employee
during
his/her
service period and take appropriate action
against such an employee. (Para 22)

Considering the allegations leveled against the
petitioner and also taking note of his status,
reach and resources, the State Government has
placed him under suspension. The impugned
orders suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness
which require an interference of this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 20)

Commercialization of education has eroded the
very value of education. As a result, there are
education mafias and nakal mafias in the
system. Schools and colleges have become
profit
making
establishments.
It
is
the
responsibility of the State and the Society to
clean the education system. (Para 19)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
15.04.2023
against
suspension
and
institution of disciplinary proceedings. Also,
order
dated
18.04.2023,
whereby
the
charge of Joint Director of Education,
Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya has been given
as an additional charge to Shri Manoj Kumar
Dwivedi, Divisional Joint Director, Kanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ravi Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep
Sharma,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
State-respondents.