HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 317 of 2022 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This special appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 26.11.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3702 (S/S) 2021; Jeet Lal Maurya and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records what comes out is that respondent no. 1 herein figures at Serial No. 130 in the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amins which is the basis for considering them for regularization under Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time. No doubt, Shri Ram Sundar Singh (proforma respondent no. 2) whose name figured at Serial No. 193 he filed an application for being considered for such regularization and initially his claim was rejected on the ground that he had crossed the maximum age of 45 years, however, this led to the filing of a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 15120 (S/S) of 2018 which was allowed on 16.01.2019 in the following terms:- "Heard Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State respondents. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Niranjan Singh State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Ors .....Appellant(s) Jeetlal Maurya And Another .....Respondent(s) Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is working on the post of Seasonal Collection Ameen since 12.01.1996. Under U.P. Collection Ameen Service Rules, 1974 the petitioner claimed regular appointment on the post of Collection Ameen under 35% quota reserved for the Seasonal Collection Ameens. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that on the date of consideration of his claim, he became overage (more than 45 years of age). Thus, the claim of the petitioner was recommended before the State Government for relaxation in age, so that after relaxation provided by the State Government, the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for regular appointment. Assailing the impugned order of rejection dated 25.04.2018, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 5 of U.P. Collection Ameen Service Rules, 1974 it has been provided that the candidate must have High School examination passed, at least has worked as Seasonal Collection Ameen for six fasli years and in four fasli years his work should be satisfactory in as much as he should not be above 45 years of age. In view of the aforesaid rules, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 5 of 1974 Rules. He next submitted that in the impugned order, there is no other objection except that the petitioner became overage. He further submitted that the age prescribed under the rules shall be taken into consideration on 1st July of the year of selection and on the said date, the petitioner was below 45 years of age. Therefore, rejection of the claim of the petitioner is illegal. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel invited attention of this Court on the averment made in the counter affidavit, wherein the reasons assigned in the impugned order has been supported by making statement of fact, which has been denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. To resolve the controversy, Rule 5 of 1974 Rules is being quoted below: SPLA No. 317 of 2022 2 "5. Source of recruitment:- [(1) Recruitment to posts in the ordinary grade of the service shall be made on the result of a competitive examination as provided in Part V of these rules: Provided that subject to availability of suitable candidates, up to fifteen per cent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion from amongst such substantively appointed collection peons- (a) who have passed at least High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto; and (b) Who have worked in the Collection Organisation of the Revenue Department for a period of at least six Fasals: Provided further that thirty-five per cent vacancies shall be filled by selection from amongst such Seasonal Collection Amins- (a) Who have worked satisfactorily for at least four Fasals: (b) whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years: Provided also that if suitable candidates are not available, remaining vacancies shall be filled by general candidates through direct recruitment. Explanation:- Satisfactory work shall mean at least seventy per cent realisation as per prescribed standard during the last four Fasals including good conduct throughout]." On perusal of the aforesaid Rule 5 and on perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules. It is further transpired that in the impugned order it has been admitted that on 01.07.2017, the petitioner was 44 years, 10 months and 11 days of age. Thus, the claim of the petitioner would not have been recommended to the State Government for relaxation in age. The petitioner was SPLA No. 317 of 2022 3 fulfilling the entire criteria prescribed under 1974 Rules. Thus, in spite of recommending the same to the State Government for relaxation in age, the claim of the petitioner would have been considered and necessary orders would have been passed. In view of the aforesaid, the Court records that on 01.07.2017, the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria laid down under the Rules of 1974. Thus, the impugned order of rejection of claim setup by the petitioner suffers from apparent illegality and is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 is hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order in the light of observations made above within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 4. When above quoted judgment was not complied he filed a contempt petition bearing Contempt Petition No. 495 (C) of 2019; Ram Sundar Singh Vs. Markandey Shahi, District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, wherein, directions were issued for filing affidavit of compliance. It appears that in pursuance thereof an order was issued on 16.07.2019 in favour of Shri Ram Sunder Singh regularizing his services on the post of Collection Amin. Now, Shri Ram Sundar Singh was placed below the respondent no. 1 herein in the seniority list. The respondent no.1 is placed at Serial No. 130. This is one of the reasons why the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 has been allowed. 5. The other reason, which was put forth before the writ Court by the appellant to oppose the claim of the respondent no. 1, was that there was no vacancy under 35% quota for such regularization of Collection Amins. Learned Single Judge has opined that once the services of a junior person had been regularized, then, this plea is not open. The learned Single Judge was persuaded by the fact that a junior person having been regularized the aforesaid plea of absence of vacancy was not tenable, however, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has ignored the fact that there are several SPLA No. 317 of 2022 4 senior persons to the respondent no. 1-petitioner who are placed at Serial No. 90 to 129 whose services have not been regularized. As regards Shri Ram Sundar Singh is concerned, the said regularization was done after filing of the contempt petition, even though, he was much junior. On being asked as to why Shri Ram Sundar Singh was regularized learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants could not satisfy us that there was any such direction either by the Writ Court or Contempt Court which compelled the appellants herein to offer such regularization to Shri Ram Sundar Singh. Be that as it may, apparently, Shri Ram Sundar Singh being placed at Serial No. 193 he could not have been regularized over the head of his seniors. The regularization, apparently, appears to be erroneous on this count, however, our observation will not be made a basis for cancelling his regularization as the same is not under challenge before us. 6. The fact is that an illegal action of the appellants herein can not be the basis for perpetuating an illegality so far as the respondent no. 1 herein is concerned. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. On being asked learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 could not dispute the fact that persons placed above him i.e. from Serial No. 90 to 129 their services had not yet been regularized. We, therefore, find that this relevant aspect has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge and also that there are no vacancies under 35% quota. We do not find any such finding having been recorded by the learned Single Judge that in fact, there are vacancies in the said quota. For these reasons the impugned judgment is set-aside. 7. In future if there are vacancies, then, the appellants would be obliged to consider regularization of all eligible persons strictly in accordance with Rules. 8. The Special Appeal is allowed. August 27, 2025 R.K.P. SPLA No. 317 of 2022 5 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench