Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2985 of 2008 Petitioner :- Yogendra Nath Upadhyay & Others Respondent :- Sri S.P. Dixit D.M. Mirzapur & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sriprakash Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- Sc Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2010 the opposite party no.1 is
present. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has filed an
affidavit of compliance on behalf of the present District
Magistrate, Mirzapur and also an affidavit of compliance on behalf
of the opposite party no.1. As per the contents of the affidavits
filed today, it has come on record that the order passed by the
opposite party no.1 on 28.8.2008 was based upon incorrect
interpretation of the judgment of the writ court as the present
District Magistrate has passed an order regularising/promoting the
applicants on the post of Collection Amin. The writ petition which
was allowed on 9.5.2008, had provided for offering appointments
on regular basis to the petitioners therein (applicants) within two
months. When the order was not complied with, the present
contempt application was filed in which notices were issued on
22.9.2008. Pursuant thereto the opposite party no.1 had filed an
affidavit dated 25.10.2008 annexing an order dated 28.8.2008
rejecting the claim of the applicants for regular appointments. The
applicants were thus deprived of the benefit of the judgment of the
writ court, on apparently wrong interpretation of the judgment of
the writ court by the opposite party no.1. In the compliance
affidavit filed today, although he has expressed in clear terms
unconditional and unqualified apology but no explanation has been
given as to under what circumstances the order dated 28.8.2008
was passed. A passing reference has been given in paragraph 7 of
the affidavit that as the applicants were not fit as per the U.P.
Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 for want of satisfactory
collection, their claims were not recommended for regularisation.
However from the affidavit of the present District Magistrate,
some of the applicants, on the available vacancies have been given
regular appointments. It has been mentioned in the affidavit that
there are 8 vacancies, 5 belonging to General Category and
remaining 3 belonging to Other Backward Class category. Only 5
appointments could be made which included the applicant nos.1 &
8 in the General Category and applicant nos.2, 5 & 9 under the
Other Backward Category based upon their respective seniority.
In the Committee constituted by the present District Magistrate,
recommendation has been made after considering such material on
record. They have also taken into consideration the fact that the
collection of the applicants was less than satisfactory that is below
the limit but only on the ground of the judgment of the writ court,
they found it appropriate to regularise the applicants as temporary
seasonal collection Amins as admittedly junior to the applicants
have already been regularised. It is only in these circumstances
that the writ court had directed the respondents in the writ petition
to offer regular appointment to the applicants.
Thus, the Court is prima facie not satisfied with the explanation
given by the opposite party no.1. On the request of Sri Piyush
Shukla, learned Stanidng Counsel he may file better affidavit
explaining under what circumstances the order dated 28.8.2008
had been passed, failing which the Court will have no option but to
take appropriate action against him for disobedience of the
directions of the writ Court.
It is further provided that the present District Magistrate will
ensure that as and when the vacancies in the respective categories
are available under 35% quota reserved only for the Seasonal
Collection Amins are available in the regular Cadre of Collection
Amin the remaining applicants will be given regular appointment,
without any undue delay.
List this case on 23.8.2010. By the said date the opposite party
no.1 may file better affidavit and shall also remain present before
this Court on the said date. The applicants may file replies to the
affidavits filed today.
When the case is listed next the Contempt Application No.3034 of
2008 will also be listed giving full names of the parties and
counsels appearing therein in the cause list.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
RPS