IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37379 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. RAJENDRAN M.P., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KALPETTA. 2. SANTHOSHKUMAR A.V. VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KANHANGAD. 3. BABY JOHN C., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. SATHEESHKUMAR K.V. VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 5. SHAJI KUYYATIYIL, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THUNIRI, KOZHIKODE. 6. BIOY MATHEW, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CHENGANNOOR. 7. JOHN V.G., VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).37379/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are working as Village Extension Officers- Grade-II in the various Block Development Offices in the State. PSC invited applications for the post of junior Inspector (Co-operative Societies) as evidenced by Ext.P5. Qualification prescribed in the notification shows that the applicant should have had service as Village Extension Officer for a period of at least five years. It is also stated in the notification that the said period of five years must have been completed prior to the last date of receipt of application as mentioned in the notification. It is further stipulated that pre-service training will not count for the purpose of computing five years. This part of the notification has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 2. Petitioners contend that as per the Subordinate Service Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Junior Inspector, is by transfer from among the W.P.(C).37379/2007 2 gramasevaks. The rule contemplates service of not less than five years as gramasevaks. Gramasevaks are included in the General Subordinate Services. Rule 8 of the said rules provides that every person selected for appointment as Village Extension Officer or Lady Village Extension Officer shall undergo training in one of the extension training centers in the State before appointment to the post. The period of training shall not count for probation. Rule 7 of the General Rules provides a period of probation of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. 3. Petitioners contend that Ext.P1 order will show that the Government had directed that the pre-service training period of the Village Extension Officers will count for increment, pension and gratuity and not for seniority. It is contended that if the pre-service training period can be taken into account for the purpose of increment, obviously it must also be treated as service and therefore, there is no logic or rationale in excluding the said period in the computation of five years of W.P.(C).37379/2007 3 service as gramasevaks which entitles a person to be considered for appointment as Junior Inspector of Co- operative societies, by transfer. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the PSC to the effect that as per Ext.P1 Government Order, pre-service training period of Village Extension Officers will count only for increment, pension and gratuity. That does not mean that it should be treated as duty. Government had clarified that the pre-service training of the Village Extension Officers cannot be counted as service since it is not specified as a course of training under Rule 12(7) (iii) of Part-I of K.S & S.S.R. A copy of the letter of the Government dated 21.5.1983 was also made available before me for perusal. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. 6. Though Ext.P1 Government Order provides that pre-service training period should be taken into account W.P.(C).37379/2007 4 for the purpose of increment, pension and gratuity, in my opinion, that will not suffice to treat the pre-service training period as duty for all purposes. Rule 12(7)(iii) defines 'duty' as to include service on probation provided, such service is followed by confirmation. It was always open to the Government to issue a direction that pre-service training should be treated as 'duty' but that has not been done in the present case and as I have noted above, Ext.P1 does not reflect any positive direction by the Government in terms of Rule 12(7)(iii) of Part-I of K.S & S.S.R requiring the pre-service training period also to be treated as duty. In fact, Government letter dated 21.5.1983 indicates the contrary. For all these reasons, I do not find any error in the stand taken by the PSC as regards the stipulation in Ext.P5 notification. In the result, Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs