ISBSg CF^ir^ ^ IN THE BOS'BIS HI6H COORT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR W.P.(S) N0.s^] OF 2007 Petitloners ''^•A^" cy ^'".^•••' ^rf-' 1. A.K. Chandravanshi, S/o Dr. M.R. Chandravanshi, aged about 53 years, R/o Gaitara, Block S Tehsil - Tilda, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. R.K. Choudhary, S/o Shri T.R. Choudhary, aged about 46 years, R/o Shyam Nagar,Raipur ^(CG) 3. N.K. Chandrakar, S/o Shri G.L. Chandrakar, aged about 48 years, R/o Bhathagaon, Raipur (CG) 4. .A.K. Yadav, S/o Shri S.D. Yadav, aged about 47 years, R/o Village S Post - Darrighat, Block Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 5. O.P. Singh, S/o Shri G.D. Singh, aged about 48 years, R/o Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Director, Directo -rate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH, BILASPUR SINOLEBENCH ; HON'BI^ SHM MAmENDRA^MOHANSHRi®^^^ WritPetitIon(SlNo.5301/2007 PETITIONBRS: RESPONDENTS: A.K. Chandravanshi 8s Ors. Versus : . : ' : . - ..•^ 1. State ofChhattisgarh & another WritPetitiontStNo. 1122/2009 PETITIONER: w Chhattisgarh Krishi Snatak Shasakiya Krishi Adhikari Saiftgh SsOrs. ; Versus RESPONDBNTS: State of Chhattisgarh Ssanoth.er And Writ Petition (S)No.1274/2009 PETITIONERS: Ashok KumarAhire 8s Ors. Versus RESPONDBNTS: ORDER POST ON ^'OCTOBER.SOIO ff Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge State of Chhattisgarh SE another HIGHCQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPflR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (S) No.5301/20^07 PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: A.K. Chandravanshi & Ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh &, another Present: Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for interveners. Writ Petition (S)No. 1122/2009 PETITIONER: Chhattisgarh Krishi Snatak Shasakiya Krishi Adhikari Sangh &0rs. Versus RESPONDBNTS: State of Chhattisgarh 85 another Present: Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for interveners. And Writ Petition (Sl No. 1274/2009 PETITIONER: Ashok Kumar Ahire & Ors. Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh 8s another Present: Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava and Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for interveners. ORDER (Passed on ^' October. 2010) 1. The aforesaid three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as common issue of law and fact arise for consideradon in the aforesaid petitions. 2. In W.P. (S) No.5301/07, the petitioners who are Rural Agriculture Extension Officer in the Department of Agriculture, have made prayer for setting aside/quashing action of respondents in granting proraotion on the post of Agriculture Development Officer to those Rural Agriculture Extension Officer who do not possess the ininimum educational qualifications of graduate. In W.P.(S) No. 1122/09 & 1274/09, the petitioners have prayed for declaration that the action of the respondents in considering for promotion those Agriculture Development Officers, who are not possessed of M.Sc. Agriculture degree, which is a minimum educational qualificayon, is bad in law and illegal and for further direction to respondents to fill-up the post of Sr. Agriculture Developmen-t Officer only from amongst those Agriculture Development Officers who are possessed of minimum eligibility qualifications as per rules. 3. Case of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No.5301/07, who are Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, is that those Ruler Agriculture Extension ^ Officer who are not possessed of graduate degree are not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Agriculture Development Officer, as according to the them, minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer is B.Sc. Agriculture. Further case ofthe those petitioners is that all those Rural Agriculture Extension Officer were appointed even though they did not ".£^s-i-^-:::!^^ 't!s!ssf..,a^ ^^?^ possess the minimum preseribed qualificadon fbr appointment to tHe' post of RuralAgriculture Extension Officer i.e. B.Sc. (Agriciilture). 4. Similarly the case of the petidoners in other two writ petitions, who are Agriculture Development Officers, is that those Agriculture Development Oflicers, who are not possessed of P.G. degree in Agriculture or allied subjects, are not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Sr. Agriculture Development Officer. Further case of the petitioners is that many of the Agriculture Development Officers are those who were neither graduate but were either matriculate or higher secondary pass, in few cases, those who are graduate, but not agriculture graduates, were appointed and are presently holding the post of Agriculture Development Officer. 5. In W.P. No.5301/07, application for intervention has been filed by those Rural Agriculture Extension Officer who are not possessed of graduate degree seeking interyention to oppose the relief claimed by the petitioners. Similarly, in other two writ petitions, intervention applications have been filed by those Agriculture Development Officer who are not possessed of graduate degree and post graduate degree. 6. It is not disputed that the nomenclature of various posts has been changed after promulgation of the relevant service rules namely M.P./C.G. sub-ordinate Agricultural (Non-Ministerial) Executive Service Recruitinent Rules, l972.(hereinafter refen-ed to as "the Recruitment Rules of 1972"). The change in nomenclature is as below:- Village Level Worker fV.L.W. ) Agriculture Assistant (Upper Division) Agriculture Assistant (Lower Division) Rural Agriculture Extension Officer (R.A.E.O.) Senior Agriculture Development Officer Agriculture Development Officer iK%S%S^:sf%l;;! si['3ff^-:^"r'-^ yl:lgly:l: x. •^•??y' 4 7. The aforesaid change in noinenclature is reflected from letters dated 9th April 1981 and 1st Pebruary, 1982 cumulatively field as Annexure D-2 along with application for taking documents on record in W.P. (S) No.5301/07. The aforesaid two letters, placed on record by the petitioners in eompliance of order dated 8.4.2010 passed by this Court, have not been disputed by anyone. 8. For brevity, Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Agriculture •Development Officer and Sr. Agriculture Development Officer hereinafter shall be referred to as R.A.E.O., A.D.O. & Sr. A.D.O respectively. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in three writ petitions submitted that under the statutory scheme of the Recruitment Rules of 1972, minimum qualification for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O., A.D.O. & Sr. A.D.O. has been prescribed. He submits that as Rules prescribe educational qualification for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of ADO and Sr.A.DO., those R.A.E.O. who are not possessed of the qualification preseribed for the post ofA.D.O. are not eligible for being considered for proinotion to the post of A.D.O. It has been argued that those R.A.E.Os. were appointed even though they were not possessed of required educational qualification of B.Sc. ^ Agriculture. Referring to the provision contained in Schedule -III appended to the Rules of 1972, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only those R.A.E.O. who possessed B.Sc. Agriculture degree could be considered for promotion to the post of A.D.O as the minimum qyalification for appointment to the post of A.D.O. is B.Sc. Agriculture. It has also been submitted that in so far as promotion from i0WW^ssSis^^ :a8 SWt ?/? ^ :^t^^ ^i"^^ ^SSISS "s'sss the post ofA.D.O. to Sr.A.D.O. is concemed those A.D.Os who'are post graduate in Agriculture Qr aUiedsubjects alone could be considered for promotion to the post of Sr.A.D.O. It has also been argued that those R.A.E.Os. and A.D.Os. who are not possessed ofgraduate degree cannot be saidto be appointed according to the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, they are not entitled for being considered for promotion to their respective next higher post ofA.D.O. and Sr.ADO. 10. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Sybhasfc Chandra Dhrupta & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh fis Ors.1, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr.2, V. Markendeya & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.3 D.K. Jain & Ors. Vs, State^ofHarEana & Qrs.4 & Dr. Raiinder Sineh Vs. Statejifj'ynlaIt&Ors.5^ 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondents in all three petitions would submit that the action of the respondents in considering R.A.E.O. for promotion to the post ofA.D.O. including those who are not graduates and considering A.D.Os. for promotion to the next higher post of Sr.A.D.Os including who are not graduate and post graduate, is not in contravention of any of the provision contauied in the Recruitment Rules of 1972. It has been submitted by leamed State counsel that at the tiine when the Recruitment Rules were framed, requisite riumber of graduates in Agriculture discipline were not available and therefore those who are graduatesdn other branches and even non-graduate/matriculate were recruited by relaxing the Rules. Learned counsel for the State/respondents submitted that such non- *2000(1)S.L.R. 696 2 AIR 2007 SC 1746 3 (1989) 3 SCC 191 4 1995 Supp (l) SCC 349 5 (2001) 5 SCC 482 :;1€ ^ :f^' ^^^ '•;;\ ^\ • ij '<a. graduates/matriculate/graduateother then Agriculture graduates were subjected to extensive training of two years and sbc months respectively. Further submission of learned counsel for the State is that the qualifications prescribed in Schedule -III appended to the Rules of 1972, are referable to Rule 8 ofthe Recruitment Rules of 1972 relating to direct recruitment only and in the case of proinotion, it is not the requirement of the Rules that the occupant of the feeder post must be possessed of those qualification in order to become eligible for being considered for promotion. Learned counsel for the State argued that in • the matter ofpromotion from the post ofA.R.E.O. to A.D.O., and A.D.O. to Sr.ADO, Rule 13 8s 14 ofthe Rules of 1972 are applicable, wherein it has been provided that the Cominittee shall consider the cases of persons who on the 1st day of January of that year, had completedS years of service (whether officiating of substantive) in the post/service mentioned in the Column 2 of Schedule -IV or any other post declared equivalent thereto by the Government. Rule further provides that if persons with 5 years of completed service are not available and the exigencies of service so demanded then with the prior approval of the Govt., the Appointing Authority may relax this to 3 years of completed service. 12. Leamed counsel for interveners-A.R.E.Os. & A.D.Os. supported thecase of the respondents-State and opposed the relief claimed by the petitioners. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. i- 14. In order to appreciate the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioners in three petitions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules of 1972. In exercise of power conferred by the pt-oviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Recruitment Rules governing recruitment to various post bome in the Agriculture Department of the State Govt. have been framed known as M.P./C.G. sub-ordinate Agricultural (Non-Ministerial) Executive Service Recruitment Rules, 1972. Under Rule 6 thereof, it has been provided that recruitment to the .service shall be made by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer. Rule 8 lays down conditions of eligibility of direct recruits. Clause (i) of Rule 8 makes provision with regard to age. CIause (ii) thereof makes provision with regard to educational qualification and provides that in order to be eligible to compete at the selection, a . candidate must possess educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule -III. Rule 14 prescribes conditions of eligibility for promotion. The sarae being relevant for the purposes of deciding the controversy involved in these petitions is reproduced as below :- "14. Conditions of eligibility for promotion- The Committee shall consider the cases of all persons who on the first day of January of that year, had completed five years of service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post/service mentioned in CoJe.(2) ofSchedule IV or any other posts or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government. If persons with five years of completed service are not available and the exigencies of service so demanded then with the prior approval of the Government the Appointing authority may relax this to three years of completed service." ia i 1? ;'% w 1 !: ^ :"-tR^;|»gi l)?^-^^ ^^^^ .'''^^SSiSBSBiSSS 15.'.,,:.Schedi^e'^I..pf-the':;:,Ri^es:;^ •'%.:%??S8881iSB presGnbes.pereentagG.oftheitiumb^ I^Tti^SSI ^ ^.^': direcf rechAitmenfc Ky prBmQtiOn and^ ^l^ pQst of SrA.D.Q. (Agnculture Assistant UD) is require by way 6f promotion, whereas remaining 10 ^per Gent is fo be filled-'iip^ by way ofdireet recruitinent. SiniUarfy 40^ercent of the post ofA.D.C^ (Agriculture Assistarit LD) is to be filled-yp by way of prbniotion wfaereas 60 per cent of the post is t6 be filled up tey way of direct recruitment.:' .•:';':. :.; ;.: /':\ .;. : • ^' :: 1 ; -. \;'. 16. Schedule ^V referahlfi t6 Rule l&^prescribes the Ghannel oKprombtipn, and cohstitution ofDepartmental ^omotion Committee. The chan^ promotion as prescribed m SGhedule -IV, elearly proviffes that prbmotions tp the post of Sr. A.D.Q. shay be made froni feeder post' of A0Q ai^ other equivalent post; Sirmlai^ prbvides that RFOinQtiQri to the post <)f ADCT sfaall be made f^ feederpostof^A.E.O.andotherBquivalentpost^ 17. E^atmnatioB;sQ®th&statutory sehe^ Rules, of 1972,.shpws;thaS^^iaogj^,AD0.and.^^ ';;'^^.1^^waypfrecruitmen^;a.sSj^el|G^ttey^ ^eligibili1^:''GonditiQns'.witKs;<r'egar^|^oj^ - .::., matter^bf:'xlireel.:reci^tm^Ht.^iSjeia|a3MG^ . qualification-fQr ^appeijirttnieiTEg^lteiy^ posts.inGluding\,tM&^0sisij3^^E^^i&]M>.,S^Sr.A.^ •^^ *" ^^•^^i^ '^S'K?S& qualificgtiori;?;@i'e^riBed||E^G^di^,^ ,ara^^ and ineaning!iaiere^';tBat? Qs&'ed^atk>n^ filigibility CQn(iitj^ns^,i;I^i,aj3pointipfint;;to,;t^ recruitme;nte/Those^uRatiQnaI;c|ualifiGations^are:^e^ ^ssssss the:::<;ase:,of:,dii^GC,reGn-ufii(eB^(':on]y./T^ ;^^^:E^;^i^ ^•^Sf&^ ;— s3»'isaa .:iVK.^^V'?'SSsS 'SiSSSS ;]^^"^^^ 1^%^ 's.SBBSBKB sssissii :^^^:^i^^ itself, wherein, it has been provided that the educational qualifications are for direct recruitaient for the postOfADO and Sr.ADO. 18. For the purpose of promotion to the post of ADO and Sr.ADO, provision contained in Rule 13 & 14 and Schedule IV are applicable, a conjoint reading of which clearly lays down that in the matter of promotion from the post ofADO to Sr.ADO and REAO to ADO, the condition of eligibility prescribed is that the AREO or ADO, as the case may be, should have completed 5 years of service (whether officiating or substantivej in the post/service mentioned in column -2 of Schedule IV. 19. The statutoiy scheme of direct recruitment, promotion, eligibility conditions, educational qualifications, experience therefore does not require either expressly or by necessaiy implications, that in order to be eligible for being considered for proinotipn to the post ofADO, R.A.E.O must necessarily be possessed of graduate degree in Agriculture. Similarly there is no such requirement of the rule of being possessed of P.G. degree in Agriculture in order to become eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Sr.ADO. The Rule requires of minimum prescribed period of experience on the feeder post of RAEO or ADO, as the case may be. There is nothing in the Rule to suggest that the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitinent are applicable in the matter of promotion also. Thus, for direct recruitment against 10 per cent post of Sr.ADO, post graduate in Agriculture or allied subjects is the minimuin educational qualification required to be possessed by the candidate. Similariy, for direct recruitinent against 60 per cent of the post of ADOs, B.Sc. Agriculture is the minimum educational qualification required to be possessed by the candidate. For promotion to 90 per cent post of the SrADO, the requirement is minimum 5 years experience on the feeder post. Similarly, for !h LU ^^:.r^y.^^^-^^^ ss^ :S(SI8^g ^,'.^.^ '''•^--x BSBHSag 'if^KK^S^f:. %^^^ .i;:S/'-l^"^'E promotion against 40 per cent post of ADOs, the requiremeiit is minimumSyears experience on the feederposts. 20. True it is that minimum educadonal qualification prescribed for direct recruitment on the post of RAEO is B.Sc. Agriculture, large number of R.A.E.Os., in peculiar circumstances, came to be appointed though being matriculate and also allowed to continue in service and became regular in service cannot be held ineligible for being considered for promotion to the post of ADO either on the ground that at the time of their initial appointment on the feeder post, they did not possess the prescribed minimum qualilication. Similarly, those who were appointed or promoted as ADOs, though not possessed of graduate degree in Agriculture, cannot be held ineligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Sr.ADO on the ground that at the time of their appointment or pron-iotion, as the case inay be, as A.D.O., they were not possessed of minimuni educational qualifications. It is not disputed that all such RAEOs and ADOs who were appointed from time to time have been retained in service. Once they become member of the service, their further promotion to the next higher post, are govemed by relevant rules regarding promotion. In the absence of their being a specific provision in the rules prescribing educational qualification for the purposes of promotion, the only eligibility condition applicable would be one prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1972 i.e. minimum experience of 5 years on the feeder post. <- " 21. In the refa-irn field by respondents -State in 3 cases, a specific stand has been taken that after promulgation of the Recruitment Rules of 1972, sufficient number of candidates with graduate qualification were not available and therefore the Govt. relaxed the Recruitment Rules. In W.P. (S) No.5301/07, respohdents-State in^ paragi^h 5.11^^ o^ have sfated thus: "5.11. In regard to the averments made in this paragraph of the petition, it is submitted that according to the recruitment rules, 1972, edueational qualification for the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer Was graduate in Agriculture. As requisite number of graduate in agriculture discipline were not available, hence in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, graduates in other branches were also recruited on the post of Agriculture Extension Officer.". 22. In W.P. (S)No. 1122/09, respondents-State in paragraph 8 (c) of their return, has stated thus: "8. c. It is respectfully submitted that, during the period when the said rules of Chhattisgarh Subordinate Agricultural (Non-Ministerial) Service Rule, 1972 framed there were very few B.Sc. (Agriculture) gradate available for recruitment. Hence, the State Govt. offered relaxations in recruitment process and therefore, a number of persons were inducted who were matriculates or graduates. It is submitted that, these persons who were not B.Sc. graduates at that point of time, obtained extensive training in relaxation to the nature of work involved. In W.P. (S) No.1271/09, respondents-State have adopted the return filed in W.P.(S) No.5301/07. It has also been averred by the respondents in their return that those who were non-graduate but matriculate were subjected to extensive trctining of 2 years and those who were graduates but not in Agriculture were made to undergo 6 months training. 23. The aforesaid specific averment made in the return has not been disputed by the petitioners, therefore, the undisputed position which 12 ';.l ..l!S" ~ssy emerges, is that as the candidates with graduate in Agriculture were not available, the niinimum educational qualification of graduate in Agriculture for appointment to RAEO and ADO was relaxed by the Govt. and large number of appointments were made over decades to cope-up with the workload of the Department of Agriculture. Under these circumstances, such RAEOs &ADOs who have worked all these years and have become members of service by virtue of their regular appointment, relaxing the minimum educational qualification criteria, cannot be held ineligible for being considered for promotion on the ground that at the time of their initial appointment as RAEO or at the time of initial appointment/promotion as ADOs, they did not hold minimum educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment on those post. 24. The petitioner in these petitions have not challenged the legality and validity of appointment of RAEOs and ADOs, who were appointed as such from time to time, though not possessed of graduate degree in the Agriculture or otherwise. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the Govt. has taken any action to terminate their services on the ground that those RAEOs and ADOs were initially appointed without being possessed of the minimum eligibility criteria. On the other hand, the State has come out with clear stand that such appointments were made relaxing the minimum educational qualifications criteria, as sufficient number of candidates with B.Sc. Agriculture were not available and that such appointees were subjected to training also. This clearly shows that all such R.A.E.O. and A.D.Os. have became regular incumbent in service. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several decisions referred to above in order to contend that as the minimum educational 13 qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of ADO & Sr.ADO is graduate in Agriculture branch and M.Sc. Agriculture respectively, as reflected from Schedule -III, those RAEOs and ADOs who were not possessed of such qualilications are not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post ofADO & Sr.ADO, as the case may be. 26. In the case of Subhash Chandra Dhrupta (supra), the rule which was referred to, cleariy stipulated that no person shall be appointed to the post of Assistant, ranless he is a graduate of a recognized university or above. It was undisputed in that case that the post of Assistant is to be filled only by proraotion. It was in that context that the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant, it is necessary for a candidate to have the minimum educational qualification of being a graduate. In the factual backdrop of that case, where it was admitted position that the post of Assistant were to be filled-up 100 per cent by promotion, the relaxation clause by way of proviso having been found to be not applicable, it was held that the qualification of graduate is essential for a candidate in order to become eligible for being considered for promotion. ;27. In the case of Kaila Kumar Paliwal (supra), the issue which fell for consideration was whether the experience gained while working as Laboratory Assistant or Teacher Grade-III, satisfies the requirement of teaching experience prescribed in the advertisement of appointment to ^- the post of Head Master. Upon examination on the basis of relevant rules and the policy of appointment, it was found that 5 years teaching experience is required for consideration for appointment to the post of Head Master, which is refereble to teaching on certain categories or posts. On such consideration, it was held, taking into consideration the \ \ expert opinion of the PSC, that for the purposes of appointment to the ^_ 14 post of Head Master of a secondary school by way of direct recruitment or promotion, qualifications requisite for a candidate as in the post of teacher Grade-III are not sufficient. The ratio laid dwon in the judgment is that a person in order to be considered for promotion to higher post must be possessed of essentia] qualification and if he does not do so he cannot be considered for promotion and further that in the absence of any express power conferred upon it, the Selection Committee has no authority to relax essential qualifications. The Supreme Court held that the recruitment to post must be strictly in terms of the rules operating in the field and that educational qualification must be possessed by a person as on the date of issuance of notification or as specified in the rules and only in the absence thereto, the qualification acquired till the last date of filing of the application would be the relevant. 28. In the case of V. Markeadeya (supra), what arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the classification made between graduate Supervisors and non-graduate Supervisor is reasonable or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India in prescribing different scales of pay for them. Classification on the basis of educational qualification was held to be a valid consideration for discriminating in matters pertaining to promotion to higher post and it was held that there is no reason as to why the same principle could not be applied for prescribing different scales of pay. In the present petitions, the statutory scheme of fhe Recruitment Rules of 1972 with regard to promotion has not been challenged before this Court. In the petitions before this Court, action of respondents /State has been challenged on the submission that as the Recruitment Rules prescribe minimum educational qualification for holding a post, 15