JUDGMENT
S.R. Singh, J.
1. Process for recruitment on 17 posts of Kanistha Lipik (Junior Clerk) in the establishment of Collectorate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar was initiated vide advertisement dated August 10, 1998. The petitioner who worked as Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis for a number of years filed a writ petition being Ramesh Chand Rajput v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34697 of 1998, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proposed examination for appointment on the post of Kanishtha Lipik (Junior Clerk), inter alia, on the ground that 50% of the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Clerk ought to be filled from amongst Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis working under the Collectorate. Reliance was placed for the petitioner on certain decisions of this Court in which it
was provided that 50% vacancies in the posts of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis ought to be filled from amongst Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the advertisement was not in respect of the recruitment of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis but it related to recruitment to the post of Junior Clerks in the Collectorate. A question arose as to whether the cadre of Junior Clerk as visualised by the U. P. District Offices (Collectorate) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, is the same as that of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. In view of the nature of controversy raised therein, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon the District Magistrate to entertain the representation that might be filed by the petitioner and dispose it of by reasoned order within a period of one month. Following the direction given by the Court, the petitioner filed a representation which came to be rejected vide order dated 5.12.1998 which is the subject-matter of impugnment in the present writ petition.
2. 1 have heard Sri A. P. S. Raghav for the petitioner and standing counsel representing the opposite parties.
3. The post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis is a category ‘A’ post recruitment to which was governed by the U. P. District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980 (in short Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980), Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, provides that appointment to the category ‘A’ posts shall be made districlwise by direct recruitment and promotion of Group ‘D’ employees in accordance with the provisions of Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975, as amended from time to time. The term “Ministerial Staff” as defined in Rule 4 (g) of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975, refers to the clerical staff of the subordinate offices which is required to be appointed by direct recruitment. According to Rule 7 of
the said Rules, recruitment to the lowest grade of ministerial staff in a subordinate office was required to be made by direct recruitment through the selection committee referred to in Rule 6 of Rules on the basis of academic and other attainments as provided in Rule 12 : Provided that up to 10 per cent of the vacancies in a particular subordinate office may be filled by the appointing authority by promotion from amongst High School pass Class IV employees of that office in accordance with the orders of Government issued from time to time. The expression Group “D” employees in Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules 1980 refers to class IV employees in the district offices. Thus, a conjoint reading of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules, 1975 and the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules. 1980 would lead to the conclusion that recruitment to category ‘A’ posts which comprise of the lowest grade of ministerial staff shall be made by direct recruitment and promotion to the extent of a given percentage from amongst Class IV employees working in the district offices. Post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis is as stated Supra is one of the category ‘A’ posts which includes among other the post of Junior Clerk. It would thus appear that the posts of Junior Clerk and those of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis are the posts of equal rank and grade. The view taken by the District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 5.12.1998 that there is no separate post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis in the Collectorate establishment, therefore, does not appear to be correct being contrary to the express stipulation in Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules. 1980.
4. The question, however, that requires consideration is whether a Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis has any preferential right to be appointed on the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis/Junior Clerk. The procedure for appointment, as indicated above, is by direct recruitment and promotion of Group ‘D’ employees in a given percentage
as visualised in Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980, which lays down the procedure for direct recruitment of various categories of posts referred to therein. It may be pertinent to observe that the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, was notified vide notification dated March 16, 1985 (effective from 1.7.1986) for regulating recruitment of ministerial staff in Subordinate Government Offices and to the extent of inconsistency these rules are to prevail over the former. It may, however, be stated that the procedure for recruitment as visualised in the Rules aforestated stands superseded in so far as direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ posts falling outside the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission is concerned in view of Rule 2 of the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (in short, U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998) which provides that “these rules shall have the effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Rides or orders”. Rule 5 of the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998 provides a procedure for direct recruitment which is materially different from the procedure visualised in the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules. 1980 and the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975. Therefore, in view of Rule 2 of U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998, direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis/Junior Clerk or to any other post of category ‘A’ referred to in Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980, shall now be made in the manner prescribed by U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules 1998. The post of Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis is not a group ‘D’ post and hence a Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis cannot claim promotion by virtue of Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980. A seasonal appointment is
seasonal in nature and in the absence of Rules conferring right of regulation in the regular cadre of Assistant Vasil Baql Navis, no writ of regularisatlon can be issued. It cannot be gainsaid that Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis may apply for direct recruitment as and when process of recruitment takes place subject of course to the condition that he fulfils the requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules but the mere fact that a person has been working as a Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis confers no right in favour of such person to claim preferential right to appointment in a manner different from the one prescribed by Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980, read with U. P. the Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the ultimate order that has been passed by the District Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Veerendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1995 AWC 397, in which learned Judge of this Court has held as under :
“in case of appointment to the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis there does not seem to be any subordinate service claiming the right for promotion to the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. It would be appropriate that 50% vacancies should be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% posts are to be given to the Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis in accordance with their seniority but subject to the conditions their work and conduct had been good. For this purpose, the District Magistrate concerned may prepare a seniority list and thereafter appoint a selection committee for considering the cases of such Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. As in Collection Amins’ Rules, 1974, the criteria has been fixed for six seasons, the same criteria may be applicable with regard to Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis as well subject to other
qualifications, eligibility and age-limit may be relaxed to the extent provided for Seasonal Collection Amins.”
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the decision referred to above. Appointment to the post of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis in Collectorate is regulated by the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980, read with U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment Rules, 1998. These rules do not contain any provision for reservation in favour of Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. The Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980, which was very much in existence when the Judgment aforesaid was rendered does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge. I am afraid that in view of the Rules aforestated, no direction can be issued to the respondents to fill 50% of posts of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis or those of the Junior Clerk in the Collectorate from amongst Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis for any such direction would be tantamount to directing the appointing authority to act contrary to the statutory Rules of Recruitment, it may be pointed out that so far as Seasonal Collection Amins are concerned, the Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 as amended up to date clearly piovides that 35% vacancies in the regular cadre of Collection Amins shall be filled from amongst Seasonal Collection Amins. In the absence of any such provision in the Coltectorate Ministerial Offices Rules, 1980, no direction can be issued to the respondents to fill 50% of the vacancies in the regular cadre of Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis/Junior Clerk from amongst Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. The source of recruitment to the post is clearly defined in Rule 5 of the Collectorate Ministerial Offices Service Rules, 1980 which does not provide for any reservation in favour of Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis. The decision in Thakur Das and others v. State of U. P., and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16761 of 1992, (Annexure-3) relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner too will not be of any avail in view of the discussion aforestated.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation in view of the U. P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointees on Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, notified vide Notification No. 2/l/97-Ka-2-1998, dated, Lucknow, July 9, 1998. On the facts stated in the writ petition, it is not established that the petitioner satisfied the requisite conditions of regularisation referred to in Rule 4 of Regulartsation Rules aforestated. One of the conditions stipulated in Rule 4 (1) of the Regularisation Rules, 1998, is that the person concerned was directly appointed on daily wage basis on Group ‘C’ posts in the Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules. On the facts stated in the writ petition, this condition is not satisfied. The petitioner being a Seasonal Assistant Vasil Baqi Navis cannot be said to have been in continuous service and in any case, there is nothing on the record to show that he was in continuous service from June 29, 1991 till 9th July, 1998. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularisation on the strength of the Regularisation Rules, 1998.
8. In the conspectus of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.