IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6035 of 2008(OA No.2492/1999) Decided on : 15.11.2010. Lalit Kumar and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- (a) Quash the impugned notification A-1 issued arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally by the respondents; OR (b) Direct the respondents to consider the applicants for the post of Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspector with their present qualifications; OR (c ) Direct the respondents to relax the condition of one years vocational training in Agriculture from GSTC/VAS under the provisions of clause 17 of the R & P Rules, 1995, in view of the facts that all the applicants are agriculturists by birth and have sufficient experience of agriculture and thereafter consider the applicants for appointment against the posts of Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspector ; 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 (d) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant documents alongwith reply for perusal by this Hon’ble Tribunal. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that all of them were eligible for appointment for the post of Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspector as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1995 (for short ‘Rules’). The petitioners acquired qualification as per Rules as they were interested in the job of Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspectors. As per Rules, for the post of Village Extension Officer (Agriculture), the minimum educational qualification is matriculation with 2nd division with science (Physics & Chemistry) or its equivalent from a recognised Board or University. 3. The respondents arbitrarily amended the rules vide notification dated 29.12.1998 Annexure A-1. It has been alleged that the names of the petitioners were sponsored by their respective employment exchanges for the interview held on 16.7.1999 at H.P.Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur with the rider that the petitioners were admitted provisionally subject to the condition that petitioners fulfill the essential qualifications of 10+2 with science or its equivalent from the recognised Board of School Education or University followed by one year vocational training in Agriculture from GSTC/VAS or should have passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from recognised University or its equivalent. The petitioners are possessing the qualifications of 10+2 with science (Agriculture) but are not having one year vocational training in Agriculture from GSTC/VAS. 4. The further case of the petitioners is that at the relevant point of time when the petitioners acquired the qualification of 10+2 (Agriculture), the requisite minimum qualification for the post of Village 3 Extension Officer was matric followed by one year training of vocational agricultural school/Gram Sewak training Centre or higher qualification like intermediate in agriculture or apprenticeship trade certificate in Farm Organisation and management under the Deputy Director of Agriculture, H.P. The petitioners acquired the said qualification with a view to get the job of the Village Extension Officer in the respondent department but now the respondent department has arbitrarily changed the qualification for the said post. The petitioners have also invoked Rule 17 and have prayed that respondents may be directed to administer the power of relaxation in judicious manner. On these grounds, the petition has been filed for the reliefs noticed above. 5. The respondent No.2 has filed the reply. It has been stated that the basic qualification for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer (Agriculture) Class-III (Non-Gazetted) is 10 +2 with science or its equivalent from the recognised Board of School Education or Univeristy followed by one year vocational training in Agriculture from GSTC/VAS or should have passed B.Sc. (Agr.) degree from recognised University or its equivalent but the petitioners do not fulfill the educational / vocational qualification prevailing at the time of advertisement and as such, the petition may be dismissed. 6. The respondent No.1 has also filed separate reply in which more or less the same stand has been taken as has been taken by respondent No.2. The petitioners have filed rejoinder and reiterated their stand taken in the petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that in view of 1995 Rules the petitioners acquired the qualification and they were eligible for the post of 4 Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspector but the rules have been arbitrarily amended vide notification dated 29.12.1998 Annexure A-1 adding additional qualifications. The stand of the respondents is that at the time of recruitment process the rules were already amended and recruitment was to be made as per the amended rules. The petitioners have not challenged the competency for amending the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that Rules have been amended arbitrarily. It cannot be said that the amended carried out vide Notification Annexure A-1 is wrong and illegal. It emerges from the case of the petitioners themselves that as per the amended rules they are not eligible for the post of Village Extension Officer/Agriculture Inspector. The petitioners themselves have invoked Rule 17 for relaxation. In appropriate case the relaxation clause can be considered by competent authority. This being the position, there is no merit in the petition, accordingly petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 15, 2010 Judge. (GR)