IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9361 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.V.KRISHNA SWAMY, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.9361 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 19th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Agricultural Officer, presently working in the Krishi Bhavan, Kumbla. According to him, he is conversant with Kannada, a minority language and therefore the government could consider issuing orders directing promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture invoking Rule 9(d) of Part II of KS&SSR. According to the petitioner, his claim was directed to be considered under Ext.P3 judgment dtd.28.6.2005. But that was declined under Ext.P4 order on the premise that there was no vacancy of Assistant Director of Agriculture available in Kasargode District as such. 2. The petitioner submits that the situation has undergone a change subsequently with a post of Cashew Development Officer and Assistant Soil Chemist, stated to be equivalent to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, due to fall vacant and therefore the claim may be considered in the light of the same. 3. I am of the view that it is up to the government to W.P.(C)9361/2008 2 consider firstly whether the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture should be filled up by resorting to Rule 9(d) and secondly whether the posts which are mentioned by the petitioner in Ext.P5 are eligible to be treated as equivalent to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 which is a communication issued by the Principal Agricultural Office will evidence his case. The matter is to be decided by the Government. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5, in accordance with law, and if necessary, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Copy of the writ petition may be produced along with the judgment. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/