Collection Amins Service Rules | Seniority Can't Override 70% Recovery Requirement For Regular Appointment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Seasonal Collection Amin who has failed to achieve the minimum recovery of 70% prescribed under the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 cannot claim regular appointment on the strength of seniority. It held that satisfactory work is a condition of eligibility under Rule 5 of the Rules and seniority becomes relevant only among those who are eligible.

Rule 5 of the Rules, as amended in 1992, provides that 35% of the vacancies of Collection Amin shall be filled by selection from Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals. Work is treated as satisfactory where the recovery is at least 70% of the prescribed standard in the last four fasals, coupled with good conduct throughout.

Justice Garima Prashad held,

“The Rules make satisfactory work a condition of eligibility. Seniority governs preference among eligible candidates; it cannot remove the condition which makes a candidate eligible in the first place. A person whose recovery does not meet the prescribed standard cannot claim regular appointment merely because his name appears above another person in a list of Seasonal Collection Amins.”

Petitioner worked as a Seasonal Collection Amin in District Rae Bareli for seven fasals between 1993 and 1997. His claim for regular appointment was rejected by the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli on grounds that his recovery was below 70% in every fasal.

Challenging the rejection, petitioner pleaded that his recovery exceeded 75% in each fasal and that three persons placed below him in the seniority list had been regularly appointed in December 2005. Relying on Awadesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, it was argued that the denial was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Perusing the fasal-wise figures of demand and recovery placed on record by the State, the Court found that the petitioner had not touched 70% in any of the seven fasals, his best being 66.87%. Taken together, his recovery in the last four fasals came to about 43.54%.

Distinguishing Awadesh Kumar Pandey, the Court noted that the petitioner there had produced an unchallenged certificate of the Tehsildar showing recovery above 70%. It also held that nothing showed any of the petitioner's juniors had been appointed without meeting the recovery requirement.

“More importantly, no direction can be issued requiring the State to appoint a person who does not satisfy a statutory condition of eligibility. Seniority could have assisted the petitioner only if he had first entered the class of eligible Seasonal Collection Amins.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.07.2006 was upheld.