Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Puducherry State National Vector Borne ... vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 20 March, 2025
1 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01136/2014
Dated this the 20th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
1. Puducherry State National Vector
Borne Disease (Filaria-Malarial Control Programme
Adi-Dravidar Field Workers Welfare Association
Represented by its Secretary Mr. S. Saravanaperumal,
No. 67. Mettu Street, Kurusukuppam
Puducherry.
2. Periasamy,
S/o Ettiyan,
No. 20, Mariamman Koil Street,
Sethurapet, Puducherry .. Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Prakash Adiapadam
Vs
1.Union of India represented by
His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry.
Rajnivas, Puducherry.
2. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road,
Puducherry.
2 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
3. The Special Secretary to Government (DP & AR),
Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road, Puducherry.
4. The Secretary to Government
(Adi-Dravidar Welfare),
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road, Puducherry.
5. The Secretary to Government
(Health & Family Welfare),
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road, Puducherry.
6. The Under Secretary to Government
(Health & Family Welfare),
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road, Puducherry,.
7.The Director of Health & Family
Welfare Services (Health),
Health Department Complex,
New Saram, Puducherry.
8.The Assistant Director
Puducherry State National Vector Borne Disease
(Filaria & Malaria) Control Programme
Filaria Control unit,
New Saram, Puducherry. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
3 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:
(i) to direct the respondents to call for the records relating to impugned Revised/Amended Recruitment Rules (RRs) i). vide G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 03-06-2014, AND also ii). previous/earlier Recruitment Rules vide G.O.Ms. No. 21 dated 09-06-2000, for the post of "Insect Collector" issued by the 6th respondent and quash the same as highly illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, malafide, discriminative and unconstitutional as it violative of Article 14, 16, 309 & 311 of Constitution of India and it amounts to giving retrospective effect to those Recruitment Rules and consequentially
(ii) to direct the respondents to fill-up the present 12 vacancies for the post of 'Insect Collector' by promotion from the posts of 'Superior Field Worker/Filed Workers', who have absorbed/engaged/entered/appointed into service till 2007 with basic educational qualification of VIII Std. Pass, as per their seniority cum merits by strictly following/adhering original Recruitment Rules, vide G.O. Ms. No. 45/DS(H)/81 dated 18-
03-1981, without insisting them to acquire the Educational Qualifications of "H.S.C. with Science with at-least 8 years of service in the grade of Filed Worker" as per Revised/Amended Recruitment Rules (RR), vide G.O.Ms. No. 21 dated 09-06-2000 OR without insisting them to acquire the Educational Qualifications of "SSLC (10th Class Pass) or its equivalent and successfully completion of Special Filaria Training in Filaria Training Centre recognized by the Government", as per recruitment Rules vide G.O.Ms. 38 Dated 3-6-2014, by giving one time relaxation and to pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case and thus render justice.
4 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
2. The facts as culled out from the OA are as follows:
In 1976, approximately 106 Daily Rated Employees, who had been engaged as part-time workers between 1961 and 1976 with a minimum educational qualification of VIII Std Pass, were absorbed into regular positions as 'Field Workers. In 1989, four post of 'Superior Field Workers' were created to supervise the work of the Field Workers. In 2004, seven workers were appointed as direct recruits to the 'Field Worker' post, with the same educational qualification of VIII Std Pass. In 2007, another 15 workers were appointed as direct recruits to the same 'Field Worker' post, maintaining the educational qualification of VIII Std Pass. Prior to 2007, the prescribed educational qualification for the 'Field Worker' post was only VIII Std Pass. On 22-02-1990, the 4th respondent issued Recruitment Rules for the 'Filaria Inspector' post, which is a higher post than the 'Insect Collector.' According to the Rules, 66 2/3% of the post to be filled by Direct Recruitment, and 33 1/3% by promotion. For Direct Recruitment, the educational qualification is SSLC or its equivalent and a certificate of having undergone 4 weeks of special training at a government recognized Filaria Training Centre. For promotion, candidates must have at least 8 years of regular service as an 'Insect Collector.' On 18-03-1981, the 4th respondent issued Recruitment Rules for the 'Insect Collector' post, which could be filled either through promotion or direct recruitment. For 5 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 promotion, candidates must have at least five years of experience as a 'Field Worker' with an educational qualification of VIII Std Pass or its equivalent. For direct recruitment, the required qualification is SSLC or its equivalent. The 4th respondent revised the Recruitment Rules for the 'Insect Collector' post vide G.O.Ms. 21, dated 09.06.2000 These Rules superseded the 1981 Rules. Under the Revised Rules, the 'Insect Collector' post is filled only by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. The educational qualification for direct recruitment was raised to "Pass in H.S.C. with Science subject, from "SSLC." For promotion, the qualification was raised to "H.S.C. with Science" and at least 8 years of service as a 'Field Worker.' The applicants submitted a representation, dated 12.07.2010 to the Lt. Governor of Puducherry, requesting a relaxation of the educational qualification requirement in the Revised Recruitment Rules (2000), citing Rule 5 of the same. They followed up with reminders on 14-05-2010, 12-07-2010, 29-05-2011, 24-09-2012, and 05-07-2013. On 13-02-2014, the applicants submitted another representation requesting that 12 vacancies for the post of 'Insect Collector' be filled by promoting qualified 'Field Workers' based on seniority, with an educational qualification of VIII Std Pass. On 03-06- 2014, the 4th respondent issued a further revision to the Recruitment Rules for the 'Insect Collector' post, superseding the 2000 Rules. According to 6 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 the 2014 Rules, the post is filled by promotion only, with direct recruitment used only in the absence of eligible candidates for promotion.
For promotion, candidates need SSLC, at least 3 years of experience, and successful completion of special Filaria Training. For direct recruitment, candidates must have H.S.C. (12th) with Science as a subject or its equivalent. On 24-06-2014, the applicants submitted another representation requesting that the 12 vacancies for the 'Insect Collector' post be filled by promoting 'Field Workers' who were engaged by 2007 with an educational qualification of VIII Std Pass, based on seniority, and asking for a one-time relaxation of the educational qualification requirement. They also requested that the vacancies not be filled through direct recruitment until this issue is resolved.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the amended/revised Recruitment Rules for the post of Insect Collector, 2014, are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, objectionable, and unconstitutional as they violate Articles 14, 16(1), 309, and 311 of the Constitution of India. He pointed out that the frequent revisions to the Recruitment Rules for the Insect Collector post, which have progressively increased the educational qualifications required for promotion from "a pass in VII with 5 years' experience as a Field Worker" (as per 1981 7 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 Rules) to "H.S.C. with Science subject and 8 years of experience as a Field Worker" (per 2000 Rules), and finally to "a pass in SSLC and completion of Special Filaria Training at a Government-recognized Filaria Training Centre" are illegal, discriminatory, and violate constitutional provisions. He argued that these changes deprive employees (Field Workers) who were appointed before 2007 with the basic qualification of VIII Std Pass of their chance for promotion, forcing them to remain in the same post until retirement without any opportunity for career advancement.
4. The counsel further emphasized that frequent revisions to the Recruitment Rules, increasing the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Insect Collector, are unjust. He cited established legal principles stating that any amendment with retrospective effect may be struck down if it causes unreasonable classification, depriving individuals entitled to benefits under the original rule without legitimate justification. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Paul v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1263).
5. The counsel further submitted that the respondents should have filled the 12 existing vacancies for the post of Insect Collector exclusively through promotion from the posts of Superior Field Worker/Field Workers, 8 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 based on seniority and merit, while strictly adhering to the old Recruitment Rules dated 18-03-1981 (G.O. Ms. No. 45/DS(H)/81). He argued that this could have been done by granting a one-time relaxation, without imposing the educational qualifications of "H.S.C. with Science and at least 8 years of service as a Field Worker" as per the Revised/Amended Recruitment Rules (RR) of 2000 (G.O. Ms. No. 21 dated 09-06-2000), or "SSLC (10th Class) or its equivalent, along with successful completion of Special Filaria Training in a Government-recognized Filaria Training Centre" as per the present impugned Revised/Amended Recruitment Rules (RR) of 2014 (G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 03-06-2014). The counsel highlighted that the 12 vacancies had existed since 1998, prior to the issuance of the 2000 and 2014 Recruitment Rules.
6. He further contended that it is a well-established legal principle that no one can be compelled to do something impossible. In this case, the respondents are effectively forcing the applicants, Field Workers to acquire educational qualifications such as H.S.C. (Science) under the 2000 Recruitment Rules or SSLC under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, in order to be considered for promotion to the post of Insect Collector. He argued that this is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Additionally, he submitted that the actions of the 4th respondent in passing the impugned Recruitment 9 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 Rules without considering the applicants' representations are illegal and unlawful. For the aforesaid reasons, he sought the relief requested in the present OA.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions of the applicants' counsel and relied upon the averments contained in the reply statement. He submitted that the recruitment for the post of Insect Collector was first notified through G.O. Ms. No. 45/DS(H)/81, dated 18.03.1981, issued by the Health, Electricity, and Works Department, Government of Puducherry. At that time, the post was classified as Group 'D' Non-Ministerial, with a pay scale of Rs. 210-4-250- EB-5-270 (pre-revised). The Recruitment Rules specified that the method of recruitment to the post of Insect Collector was promotion from the post of Field Workers who had passed the VIII Standard (8th grade) or equivalent, with at least 5 years of experience as a Field Worker. If no qualified candidates were available, direct recruitment was allowed. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment was a pass in SSLC or its equivalent.
8. The counsel further explained that following the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Recruitment Rules for the 10 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 post of Insect Collector were amended by G.O. Ms. No. 27, dated 09.06.2000, issued by the Chief Secretariat (Health), Government of Puducherry. In the amended rules, the post was reclassified as Group 'C' Non-Ministerial, with a revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (pre-revised). The method of recruitment was changed to promotion from Field Workers who possessed an 'H.S.C. with Science subject' and had at least 8 years of service in the grade, failing which by direct recruitment. The educational qualifications for direct recruitment were set as a pass in H.S.C. with Science subject or its equivalent.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Government of India launched the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme across the country to control and prevent diseases such as Malaria, Filaria, Dengue, Chikungunya, Japanese Encephalitis, and Kala- Azar. The Government of Puducherry is also implementing this programme in the Union Territory with the following objectives: (i) Malaria elimination by 2030, (ii) 50% reduction in Dengue cases, (iii) Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis by 2020, and (iv) Zero mortality due to vector-borne diseases.
11 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
10. He also averred that the post of Insect Collector plays a crucial role in the programme, as the Insect Collector is responsible for collecting mosquito larvae to assess the effectiveness of anti-larval operations aimed at controlling vector-borne diseases. Therefore, it became necessary to amend the qualifications for the post of Insect Collector, making it a requirement to have Higher Secondary education with Science subject and an enhanced pay scale, in line with the recommendations of the 5 th Central Pay Commission, to improve the performance of the incumbents in this role. All 12 posts of Insect Collectors have been filled according to the existing Recruitment Rules notified in G.O. Ms. No. 38, dated 03.06.2014, by the Chief Secretariat (Health), Government of Puducherry.
11. The counsel pointed out that the amendment of Recruitment Rules, including the prescription of requisite qualifications, is permissible under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Moreover, the amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Insect Collector, which included higher qualifications and an enhanced pay scale, was made based on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, an expert body tasked with evaluating the duties, functions, and nature of employee roles and the educational qualifications required for those roles. In light of these facts, he sought the dismissal of the Original Application . 12 OA No.310/01136 of 2014
12. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
13. The main contention of the applicants before us is that the impugned Recruitment Rules have restricted or eliminated their promotional opportunities. Additionally, they argue that their chances for promotion have been significantly diminished, and they seek a one-time relaxation in this regard.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PU Joshi Vs Accountant General reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, held that there is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. The relevant portion of the judgment are extracted below:
"10.Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and 13 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service".
15. It is well-established that the creation of promotion avenues is primarily an executive function. The executive must consider various factors when framing or amending recruitment rules. Before making changes to these rules, the government is required to consult all relevant stakeholders. Courts lack the expertise in such matters, and when the executive exercises legislative powers through subordinate legislation, the 14 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 courts cannot dictate the manner of its exercise. This principle was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki (AIR 1992 SC 1546), as outlined in the excerpt below:
"A Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to a legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani & Ors., reported in 2008 (9) SCC 242, outlined the limits of judicial review in matters related to service, with the relevant portions extracted below:
"29. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or 15 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."
17. It is well settled that a supporting legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 5572-5644 of 2005, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others (2006) 4 SCC 517 "12. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds:-
a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate legislation.
b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where court might well say that Legislature never intended to give authority to make such Rules)."
18. After carefully considering averments made by the applicants and respondents, and the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that the applicants have failed to present substantial grounds to demonstrate that the amendment to the Rules is ultra vires or unconstitutional. The 16 OA No.310/01136 of 2014 Rules were amended following a series of consultations, and there is no evidence of manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the authority. At most, this case can be described as an example of dura lex, sed lex, meaning "the law is harsh, but it is the law."
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of our discussion above, we hold that the applicants have failed to made a valid case to the relief sought by them. The OA miserably fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
20. 03.2025
mas