IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 31895 of 2007(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. T.N.RAMAN, JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RSE), MULLASSERY BLOCK OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. SADIQUE HUSSAIN.M.H, JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RSE), BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, PONNANI. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS COMPOUND, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31895 OF 2007-V APPENDIX PETITIOINERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT0 NO.2741/2005/LSGD DATED 8.7.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 17.10.2006 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.07 IN WA NO.1680/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.7370/ERA2/2007/LSGD DATED 13.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.7370/ERA2/06/LSGD DATED 29.9.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.119/9/R1/06/P&ARD DATED 14.3.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.71/2006/LSGD DATED 1.3.2006 EXT.R2(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.4294/ESTT.A1/07/CRD DATED 26.10.2007. / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners joined service in the year 1984 as Village Extension Officer Grade II. In the year 1988, they were promoted as Village Extension Officer Grade I. In 2003 they were again promoted as Extension Officer (Housing) Grade II. Now the petitioners are working as Joint Block Development Officers from the year 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition the first petitioner retired. 2. The method of appointment to the post of Block Development Officer is governed by the Special Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 2 relating to category V of the Special Rules is extracted below: “1. By appointment by transfer from among Junior Lecturers in the Extension Training Centres, Village Extension Officers/General Extension Officers and Grade I Village Extension Officers) and Extension Officers (Women's Welfare) and Lady Village Extension Officers Grade I, based on the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Appointment from the categories of Village W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 2 Extension Officers (General Extension Officers and Grade I Village Extension Officers) and others namely, Extension Officers (Women's Welfare), Junior Lecturers in the Extension Training Centres and Lady Village Extension Officers Grade I shall be in the ratio of 9:1. Note:- Extension Officers (Women's Welfare) who have put in a minimum of 3 years and Village Extension Officers/(General Extension Officer and Grade I Village Extension Officers) and Lady Village Extension Officers Grade I who have put in a minimum of 8 years service in the respective categories alone will be considered for appointment by transfer.” From the Special Rules it can be gathered that the post of Block Development officer can be filled up from three sources, namely, recruitment by transfer, promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1:1. The petitioners case is that the Village Extension Officers including General Extension Officers and Grade I Village Extension Officers are eligible to be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Block Development Officers since the appointment by transfer is one among the three sources of recruitment. Since the petitioners became Village Extension Officers Grade I in the W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 3 year 1988, it is submitted that they were eligible to be considered for appointment by transfer after eight years to the post of Block Development Officers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the note to Rule 2(I). In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioners mentioned about the several legal proceedings initiated by them for redressal of their grievances. The question was considered by the Government and they passed Ext.P4 order stating that it is not possible to give promotion to the Village Extension Officerrs (CEOs and VEO Grade I) and Extension Officer (WW)/LVEO Grade I alone to the post of Block Development Officers in circumvention of Joint Block Development Officers. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is contended that now the stream of promotion to the post of Block Development Officer by transfer appointment is from the category of Joint Block Development Officer (RSE) and Joint Block Development Officer (RH) and Extension Officer (WW) Grade I. Therefore, it is not possible to give promotion to the Village Extension Officers, General Extension Officers and Grade I Village Extension Officers and Extension Officer W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 4 (Women's Welfare) and Lady Village Extension Officer Grade I alone to the post of Block Development officer in circumvention of Joint Block Development Officer. In Ext.P4 the reasons stated for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that in the Special Rules issued there was no mention about the post of Extension Officer (IRD) and Extension Officer (Housing) Grade I and that the posts of Extension Officer (IRD) were created as per G.O.(Rt) No.1523/78/DD dated 9.5.1978 and the posts of Extension Officer (Housing) Grade I were created as per G.O. (MS) No.86/80/RDD dated 15.11.1980 for the implementation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes such as IRDP and Housing Schemes. The feeder category to the promotion post of Extension Officer (IRD) and Extension Officer (Housing) Grade I are the same Village Extension Officers and Lady Village Extension Officers. In the 1985 amendment to the Special Rules, the Extension Officer (IRD) has been included in the feeder category for transfer appointment to the post of Block Development Officer and they were placed before the post of General Extension Officers. 5. Rule 2 of the Special Rules prescribes the method of appointment to the post of Block Development W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 5 Officer. Three categories of employees are included in Rule 2 for the purpose of selection for appointment to the post of Block Development Officer. Going by the Special Rules, the Village Extension Officers including the General Extension Officers and Grade I Village Extension Officers are eligible to be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Block Development Officer. The petitioners have more than eight years service as Village Extension Officers Grade I and therefore, it is submitted that they are eligible to be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Block Development Officers. Petitioners also submitted that they have no objection in considering the officers from the category of Joint Block Development Officer (RSE) and Joint Block Development Officer (RH) and Extension Officer (WW) Grade I along with the categories mentioned in the Special Rules. Since three categories of employees are included in the Special Rules for consideration for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer there is no justification in not considering the categories other than Joint Block Development Officer (RSE) and Joint Block Development Officer (RH) and Extension Officer (WW) Grade I. So long as the Special Rules stand without amendment, the Government is W.P.(C) No.31895 of 2007 6 bound to follow the Rules and make selection. 6. Therefore, a direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as Block Development Officer/Programme Officer in the existing vacancies along with other categories mentioned above as and when selection is made. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since 2007 no selection has been made. The second respondent is further directed to expedite the proceedings for selection to an earliest possible date. Writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE vns