Shankarsan Das v. Union of India and others, AIR

2. Facts as are undisputed are that the respondent was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 22.7.1991. His claim for regularization came to be considered in accordance with Rule-5 of UP Collection Amin Service Rules (5th Amendment) Rules, 1992. As per the rules, 35% of regular posts of Collection Amin was to be filled from those, who had worked satisfactorily during last four fasals and their recovery is above 70%. It transpires that a selection committee was constituted on 4.7.2000 for considering the case of persons for regularization. This committee did not select the petitioner vide order dated 15.7.2000 and five other persons were appointed. One post was kept vacant. Against this action of State, a writ petition was filed, which came to be disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.

3. Pursuant to such order, the Collector rejected petitioner's claim vide order dated 23.10.2000. The Collector found that all persons who had been regularized were senior to the petitioner and none junior to him had been accorded benefit of regularization. This order was challenged in appeal and the Divisional Commissioner found substance in the petitioner's grievance and directed that if there is any vacancy meant for general category candidate available then the petitioner's claim for regularization would be considered or otherwise his claim for regularization would be considered against any subsequent vacancy.

4. It is pursuant to this order of the Commissioner that ultimately Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 6.6.2002 has offered substantive appointment to the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin. This order of 6.6.2002 has not been challenged by the petitioner. After 11 years, a representation was made on 11.4.2003 for counting the petitioner's services between 4.7.2000 to 6.6.2002 and to grant him seniority and other benefit. This claim has also been rejected by the authorities against which the petitioner approached the Public Services Tribunal.

5. The Public Services Tribunal has recorded that though the petitioner was also considered for regular appointment against 35% posts reserved to be filled from Seasonal Collection Amin, but he was not appointed as such on that date. A further finding is returned that none junior to petitioner was regularized on 4.7.2000. The only vacancy which was left was to be filled from the Scheduled Caste category. The Tribunal has found that petitioner could not have been appointed against the reserved vacancy available in 2000 since such vacancy was for S.C. category candidate, whereas the petitioner belongs to General category. It is thereafter that when the vacancy has arisen, the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2002.

6. Sri Syed Wajid Ali for the petitioner strenuously argues that the action of the authorities in rejecting the petitioner's case is absolutely arbitrary, inasmuch as, there did exist a vacancy in the year 2000 against which the petitioner ought to have been appointed substantively on the post of Collection Amin. It is also submitted that the once the petitioner met the requisite criteria of satisfactory recovery during last four fasals, there was no occasion as to why his case for regularization was kept pending when there did exist a vacancy.

7. Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that only vacancy available in 2000 was reserved for S.C. category against which the petitioner could not have been appointed. It is also submitted that since the petitioner acquiesced to his substantive appointment in the year 2002, his making of representation after 11 years to claim continuance of service between 4.7.2000 to 6.6.2002 has rightly been denied consideration.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record.

9. It remains undisputed that on 4.7.2000, when certain other persons including the petitioner were considered by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was not appointed. Five other persons were appointed under 35% quota meant for regularization. A specific finding has been returned that none junior to petitioner was regularized then. This finding is not challenged. The only vacancy which remained then was meant for S.C. candidate and, therefore, the view taken by the respondents that in the absence of availability of post, the petitioner could not have been regularized in the year 2000 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Under the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner's claim has been considered against subsequent vacancy and he has been offered substantive appointment on 6.6.2002. The petitioner acquiesced to such appointment and never challenged it. It is after 11 long years that he has made an application for counting of his services between 2000 to 2002.

10. We find no error in the view taken by the respondents or the Tribunal in rejecting the petitioner's claim, inasmuch as, the benefit of seniority from 2000 could not have been extended to the petitioner nor such a claim could have been entertained after 11 long years. The petitioner had otherwise acquiesced to his appointment in the year 2002 itself. The finding of the Tribunal that none junior to the petitioner was appointed in 2000 and that there existed no vacancy for the General category candidate is otherwise not shown to be perverse or arbitrary.

11. Once that be so, merely because the petitioner was found suitable by the Selection Committee in the year 2000, it would not mean that he becomes entitled to be regularized on that date. Law is otherwise settled that mere selection does not confer any indefeasible right and interference in such matters can be made only if any arbitrariness is shown. (See: Shankarsan Das v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1612)

12. Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 LN Tripathi LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Facts as are undisputed are that the respondent was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 22.7.1991. His claim for regularization came to be considered in accordance with Rule-5 of UP Collection Amin Service Rules (5th Amendment) Rules, 1992. As per the rules, 35% of regular posts of Collection Amin was to be filled from those, who had worked satisfactorily during last four fasals and their recovery is above 70%. It transpires that a selection committee was constituted on 4.7.2000 for considering the case of persons for regularization. This committee did not select the petitioner vide order dated 15.7.2000 and five other persons were appointed. One post was kept vacant. Against this action of State, a writ petition was filed, which came to be disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.

3. Pursuant to such order, the Collector rejected petitioner's claim vide order dated 23.10.2000. The Collector found that all persons who had been regularized were senior to the petitioner and none junior to him had been accorded benefit of regularization. This order was challenged in appeal and the Divisional Commissioner found substance in the petitioner's grievance and directed that if there is any vacancy meant for general category candidate available then the petitioner's claim for regularization would be considered or otherwise his claim for regularization would be considered against any subsequent vacancy.

4. It is pursuant to this order of the Commissioner that ultimately Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 6.6.2002 has offered substantive appointment to the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin. This order of 6.6.2002 has not been challenged by the petitioner. After 11 years, a representation was made on 11.4.2003 for counting the petitioner's services between 4.7.2000 to 6.6.2002 and to grant him seniority and other benefit. This claim has also been rejected by the authorities against which the petitioner approached the Public Services Tribunal.

5. The Public Services Tribunal has recorded that though the petitioner was also considered for regular appointment against 35% posts reserved to be filled from Seasonal Collection Amin, but he was not appointed as such on that date. A further finding is returned that none junior to petitioner was regularized on 4.7.2000. The only vacancy which was left was to be filled from the Scheduled Caste category. The Tribunal has found that petitioner could not have been appointed against the reserved vacancy available in 2000 since such vacancy was for S.C. category candidate, whereas the petitioner belongs to General category. It is thereafter that when the vacancy has arisen, the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2002.

6. Sri Syed Wajid Ali for the petitioner strenuously argues that the action of the authorities in rejecting the petitioner's case is absolutely arbitrary, inasmuch as, there did exist a vacancy in the year 2000 against which the petitioner ought to have been appointed substantively on the post of Collection Amin. It is also submitted that the once the petitioner met the requisite criteria of satisfactory recovery during last four fasals, there was no occasion as to why his case for regularization was kept pending when there did exist a vacancy.

7. Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that only vacancy available in 2000 was reserved for S.C. category against which the petitioner could not have been appointed. It is also submitted that since the petitioner acquiesced to his substantive appointment in the year 2002, his making of representation after 11 years to claim continuance of service between 4.7.2000 to 6.6.2002 has rightly been denied consideration.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record.

9. It remains undisputed that on 4.7.2000, when certain other persons including the petitioner were considered by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was not appointed. Five other persons were appointed under 35% quota meant for regularization. A specific finding has been returned that none junior to petitioner was regularized then. This finding is not challenged. The only vacancy which remained then was meant for S.C. candidate and, therefore, the view taken by the respondents that in the absence of availability of post, the petitioner could not have been regularized in the year 2000 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Under the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner's claim has been considered against subsequent vacancy and he has been offered substantive appointment on 6.6.2002. The petitioner acquiesced to such appointment and never challenged it. It is after 11 long years that he has made an application for counting of his services between 2000 to 2002.

10. We find no error in the view taken by the respondents or the Tribunal in rejecting the petitioner's claim, inasmuch as, the benefit of seniority from 2000 could not have been extended to the petitioner nor such a claim could have been entertained after 11 long years. The petitioner had otherwise acquiesced to his appointment in the year 2002 itself. The finding of the Tribunal that none junior to the petitioner was appointed in 2000 and that there existed no vacancy for the General category candidate is otherwise not shown to be perverse or arbitrary.

11. Once that be so, merely because the petitioner was found suitable by the Selection Committee in the year 2000, it would not mean that he becomes entitled to be regularized on that date. Law is otherwise settled that mere selection does not confer any indefeasible right and interference in such matters can be made only if any arbitrariness is shown. (See: Shankarsan Das v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1612)

12. Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 LN Tripathi LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad