Seasonal Collection Amins must meet the prescribed 70% recovery standard before seniority can govern selection.

The petitioner was engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin on 25 January 1993 and worked for seven fasals until 30 September 1997.

After an earlier writ petition resulted in a direction to consider his representation, the District Magistrate rejected his claim for regular appointment, finding his recovery below 70% in every fasal in which he worked.

The petitioner asserted that he had exceeded 75% recovery in each fasal, relied on his position in a seniority list, and claimed that persons junior to him had been appointed.

The respondents disputed his recovery figures and maintained that the persons appointed had met the required recovery standard.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory requirement of satisfactory work for selection as a regular Collection Amin.

Whether his claimed seniority, or the appointment of persons allegedly junior to him, entitled him to appointment despite his failure to meet that requirement.

Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, as amended by the Fifth Amendment Rules, 1992, reserves 35% of vacancies for eligible Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals and meet the prescribed age limit; satisfactory work requires at least 70% realization against the prescribed standard during the last four fasals, together with good conduct.

Rule 17-A requires the Collector to identify eligible candidates first and then select the required number by seniority or length of service, subject to satisfactory work.

Accordingly, seniority governs preference only among eligible candidates and cannot cure failure to meet a statutory eligibility condition.

The Court distinguished Awadesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 201, which turned on an unchallenged official certificate establishing recovery above 70%.

Articles 14 and 21 do not confer a right to public appointment contrary to the applicable recruitment rules.

The fasal-wise figures furnished by the respondents showed that the petitioner’s highest recovery was 66.87%; in the last four fasals, his recovery was 33.27%, 34.08%, 66.87% and 55.81%, with cumulative recovery of about 43.54%.

The petitioner’s assertion of recovery above 75% was unsupported by fasal-wise evidence.

Even assuming the disputed seniority list placed him above the appointees, it did not establish that he met the recovery threshold; nor did he show that those appointed had failed to meet it.

Awadesh Kumar Pandey did not assist him because the recovery figures there were supported by an unchallenged official certificate, unlike the evidence in this case.

The District Magistrate had considered the relevant recovery figures and applied Rule 5, so the Court found no error of law or failure of consideration.

The writ petition was dismissed, the District Magistrate’s order dated 15 July 2006 was upheld, and no order as to costs was made.

Any pending application was also disposed of.