Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Commissioner And Director Of ... vs K. Gayatri, Unemployee And Ors. on 1 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008(3)ALT504
Author: K.C. Bhanu
Bench: K.C. Bhanu
ORDER D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Since the issue involved in all the abovementioned writ petitions is one and the same, though the writ petitions are at interlocutory stage and listed under the caption "For orders", with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for hearing and being disposed of finally by this common order.
2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, the learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners (Government), in all the writ petitions, Sri M. Surender Rao, the learned Counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 25896 of 2006 and 425, 1585, 2019 and 3302 of 2007, and Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P. No. 22085 of 2007, and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners (selectees) in W.P.(SR). No. 4882 of 2008 only, since none appears for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 1933, 2209 and 14520 of 2007.
3. W.P. Nos. 25896 of 2006, 425, 1933, 2209, 3302, 14520 and 22085 of 2007, and W.P.(SR). No. 4882 of 2008, are directed against the common order, dated 13.11.2006, in O.A. Nos. 6424, 2530, 1895, 1661, 1659, 723, 1659 and 1659 of 2006, respectively; and W.P. Nos. 1585 and 2019 of 2007 are directed against the common order, dated 29.11.2006, in O.A. Nos. 1922 and 1200 of 2006, respectively, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), allowing the said O.As., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare that a uniform procedure shall be adopted for selection of the candidates for the posts of Agricultural Extension Officer, Grade-II (for brevity "AEO-II") and that different yardsticks cannot be applied to the candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture and the candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and to declare further that the applicants and similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of Overall Grade Point Average (for brevity "OGPA"), as given to the candidates with B.Sc., in Agriculture; while W.P.(SR). No. 4882 of 2008 is filed by the affected persons, who were selected pursuant to the issuance of notification and selection process for filling up of the post of AEO-II, and the remaining writ petitions are filed by the Government.
4. Petitioner-Government in all the writ petitions except W.P.(S.R). No. 4882 of 2008 is the respondent and the respondents are the applicants in the respective O.As., before the Tribunal; while the petitioners in W.P. No. 22085 of 2007 and W.P.(S.R). No. 4882 of 2008 are the third parties, who are affected persons, by virtue of the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
5. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the petitioner and the respondents in all the writ petitions except W.P.(S.R). No. 4882 of 2008 will be referred to as "the Government", and "the applicants", respectively, and the petitioners in W.P. No. 22085 of 2007 and W.P.(S.R). No. 4882 of 2008 will be referred to as "the affected persons".
6. Applicants are Diploma Holders in Agricultural Polytechnic. Through G.O.Ms. No. 311, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri. IV) Department, dated 25.07.2005, an amendment was brought to Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, by the Government, by which the applicants are governed. As per the said amendment, the posts of AEO-II can be filled up by direct recruitment. Prior to the amendment, the posts of AEO-II were to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower category i.e., AEO-III. It is clear from the said amendment that the present posts of AEO-II can be filled up by direct recruitment alone. The Joint Directors of Agriculture, different Zones, issued notifications on different dates, commencing from November, 2005, calling for applications for appointment to the post of AEO-II on regular basis. As per the said notifications, the qualifications prescribed are - (1) A Degree in Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (2) Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic, and (3) B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), on merit basis.
MARKS:
OGPA 75 marks (OGPA 2.00 will be awarded with 55 marks and one mark for every 0.1 increase over 2.00 Overall Grade Point Average, (as in the case of B.Sc.(Ag.) Degree).
Seniority 10 marks @ One mark per year from the year of passing (for completed year) Experience 15 marks @ 4 marks per year for satisfactory service rendered as A.O./Agricultural Consultant (ANTWA), Multy Purpose Extension Officer (M.P.E.O.) on contract basis in the Department of Agriculture subject to a maximum of 15 marks. The service certificate should be issued by the J.D.A. of the concerned District. The service rendered on contract basis in the Agriculture Department in different spells shall be COMPUTED for arriving total period of experience in yeas and there after any part of the year shall be treated as nil.
7. Consequent upon the said notifications, several candidates, who were eligible, have made applications, seeking appointment to the posts of AEO-II. While so, the Government had issued G.6.Rt. No. 133, Agriculture & Cooperation (Agri.IV) Department, dated 10.02.2005, indicating the method to equate the marks in the qualifying examination by providing a ready reckoner as per OGPA method. Thereafter, the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued Memo. No. A5(5)846/04, dated 16.12.2005, indicating therein that the OGPA calculation was to be applied to the candidates of B.Sc., (Ag.) only and that the calculation of marks in respect of the candidates of Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational) is to be taken into account based on the percentage of marks obtained in their examination, duly calculating and limiting to 75 per cent marks and the remaining marks i.e., 25 percent are earmarked for 'seniority' and 'experience', as provided under G.O.Rt. No. 133, dated 10.02.2005, and to award marks to B.Sc., (Ag.) candidates as per the ready reckoner since there are different methods of awarding of qualifying marks in B.Sc, (Ag.) course by different Universities, such as (1) Traditional system of awarding marks; (2) 10 point OGPA system; and (3) 4 point OGPA system.)
8. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants, who are Diploma holders in Agriculture Polytechnic, have approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned O.As., contending that though the notifications and G.O.Rt. No. 133, dated 10.02.2005, appear to adopt OGPA method both for Degree holders and Diploma holders in Polytechnic, OGPA method is being adopted only to the Degree holders and thereby the Diploma holders are kept at a disadvantageous position and, therefore, sought a direction to adopt a uniform selection process for both B.Sc. (Ag.) candidates and Diploma holders in Agricultural Polytechnic and not to adopt different yardsticks. On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the same, contending that uniform procedure is being followed in the selection process and that OGPA method is only to be made applicable to B.Sc. (Ag.) candidates and not to Diploma holders.
9. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, by a common order, dated 13.11.2006 in O.A. No. 1659 of 2006 and batch, allowed the O.As., setting aside the selections made pursuant to the notifications for the posts of AEO-II. Aggrieved by the same, the Government as well as the affected persons have preferred the present writ petitions.
10. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, contends that dual standards are not permissible on three grounds; firstly, under law; secondly, the notifications specifically envisage that the OGPA is to be applied to all the candidates, as in the case of Degree holders in B.Sc. (Ag.); and thirdly, because of the application of different standards for all the eligible candidates with different qualifications, it resulted in jacking up of Degree holders in B.Sc. (Ag.) lowering the Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic. It is his specific contention that when all are equal for the purpose of eligibility criteria, there cannot be different standards. When OGPA system was applied to some of the candidates, the same ought to have been applied to the applicants also.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contends that earlier there was no eligibility for the Diploma holders or the other Graduates to compete with the Graduates in Agriculture for the post of AEO-II. However, having regard to the representations made by the other two categories of candidates i.e., Diploma holders in Agricultural Polytechnic and Degree holders in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), the Government had arrived at a conclusion to permit those two categories of candidates also, to apply for the post of AEO-II, though they possess the lesser qualification than the Graduates in Agriculture.
12. The learned Government Pleader further submits that even in B.Sc. (Ag.), there are three kinds of Graduates, who obtained Degrees from different Universities. From a perusal of the Degrees obtained from different Universities, it was noticed that those candidates were declared 'pass' on the basis of grades awarded to them. Some Universities appear to have awarded marks in 4-point scale and 10-point scale and some Universities have awarded marks on traditional basis. So far as the first two categories i.e., 4-point scale and 10-point scale are concerned, their efficiency could not be estimated basing on the marks obtained by them. The marks in those two categories are something in abstract form, inasmuch as, they were given grades either on 4-point scale or 10-point scale basis. Therefore, it is submitted that while integrating these three categories of candidates with the same qualification i.e., Graduates in Agriculture, the concept of OGPA was resorted to be applied. It is the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that otherwise it is impossible to select the candidates from these three categories of Graduates, basing on their merit. Precisely that is the reason why the system of OGPA, which has been in force for the purpose of appointments to some other posts also, has been applied in the present selections and accordingly, the notifications were issued. Even if there is any anomaly in the notifications issued by the competent authority, as regards the application of OGPA for awarding 75 per cent marks for the candidates, in order to remove any such anomaly, the same has to be understood in the context of the present situation.
13. It is the further contention of the learned Government Pleader that insofar as the Diploma holders and the Degree holders in other branch, there is no such difficult situation, as had arisen in the case of Graduates in Agriculture. In other words, all the candidates, who applied for selection to the post of AEO-II from the other two categories, were awarded the marks on traditional basis. Therefore, it is contended that there is no need for the application of OGPA system to those candidates, since the situation in Graduates in Agriculture and the other two categories of candidates do stand on two different circumstances and standards.
14. As regards the reasonable classification, the learned Government Pleader relied on the decisions in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P. and Anr. .
15. In support of his contention that any interpretation of the Court shall be to make the provision workable and such interpretation shall not leave, the learned Government Pleader relied on a decision in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. .
16. Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the affected persons, also submitted on the same lines as was submitted by the learned Government Pleader, for all purposes. However, he brought to the notice of this Court that the affected persons were selected pursuant to the District-wise notifications and selection process was made ranging from February, 2006, to November, 2006. He asserts that they were also promoted to the higher categories by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 414, dated 12.04.2007. This is the ground reality as on today. It is his specific contention that none of the affected persons i.e., the selectees in the selection process, were impleaded as parties either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that out of the total number of 461 posts of AEO-II, about 59 candidates were selected from among the Diploma holders only. Therefore, he contended that having got selection, it is not proper for the Diploma holders to contend that their chance of selection had been taken away.
17. The learned Government Pleader contends that the selections were made even as on the date of passing of final orders by the Tribunal, which are impugned in these writ petitions, and thereafter promotions were effected, as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the affected persons.
18. In the light of the above rival contentions, the main question that falls for consideration before this Court is - as to whether the applicants can be equated with the Graduates in Agriculture and the concept of OGPA can be made applicable to them also?
19. In this context, first it is to be seen that the maximum marks prescribed for selection to the post of AEO-II are 75 from OGPA, but not 75 per cent. 10 marks and 15 marks were earmarked for seniority and experience, respectively. Since almost all the candidates, who made applications for direct recruitment to the post of AEO-II, are not employed anywhere, the question of considering the seniority or experience does not arise. Therefore, it is only the marks that are to be taken into consideration.
20. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apposite to reproduce the prayer sought for in the O.As., which is as under:
In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that a uniform procedure shall be adopted for selection of the candidates for the posts of A.E.O., Grade-II and that different yardsticks cannot be applied to candidates with B.Sc. in Agriculture and candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and further declare that applicants and similarly situated persons are entitled to the benefit of O.G.P.A., as given to B.Sc. in Agriculture and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case.
21. From the above, it is obvious that the applicants are aggrieved by the non-application of uniform procedure for selection and application of different standards to the candidates, who were Graduates in B.Sc. (Ag.) and the candidates with Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and the Graduates in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational).
22. It is further clear that the applicants, who were Diploma holders, are similarly situated with that of Graduates in Agriculture B.Sc. and were entitled to the benefit of application of OGPA system as was applied to the Graduates in Agriculture.
23. The concept of OGPA, which was evolved by the Expert Committee, has been in force since many years for the purpose of selection to other posts to which the Graduates in Agriculture are eligible for appointment.
24. It is also to be seen that the selections are District level selections. It is not in dispute that prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 311, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri.IV) Department, dated 25.07.2005, through which an amendment was brought to Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1997, the posts of AEO-II are to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower category i.e., AEO-III only. By way of amendment through the said G.O., direct recruitment has been prescribed for the first time. Subsequently, in view of the representations made by the candidates of Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and the Graduates in Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), they were also made eligible to compete with the Graduates in Agriculture for selection to the post of AEO-II by direct recruitment.
25. Admittedly, several applications had flown in, seeking appointment to the post of AEO-II, and among them, there were candidates who passed B.Sc. (Ag.) from different Universities and also Diploma holders. But, it appears, from the third category i.e., B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational), no candidates applied for the said post.
26. However, in the process of selection, it was noticed by the competent authority that the candidates who applied for the post of AEO-II are from different Universities. Some Universities have awarded the Degrees, not precisely basing on the marks, but by adopting a different method on the basis of 4-point scale and 10-point scale. In other words, marks will not be indicated to those candidates from those Universities, but basing on the gradation they would be declared as having obtained the Degrees. Similarly, some Universities have awarded marks to the candidates on Traditional basis.
27. Therefore, from among the B.Sc. (Ag.) holders, there are three categories viz., (1) Traditional system of awarding marks; (2) 10-point OGPA system; and (3) 4-point OGPA system. This resulted in entertaining some amount of serious thought by the authorities concerned as to how to integrate all these three kinds of Degree holders of B.Sc. (Ag.) from different Universities.
28. When the authorities wanted to evolve a uniform procedure, it was noticed that earlier to the present selections, a uniform method, called "OGPA system", was followed for the purpose of appointment to some other posts, where the qualification was prescribed as B.Sc., (Ag.), since in those cases also several Graduates have applied from different Universities, who obtained Degrees by way of awarding marks with the above said systems.
29. Therefore, the concept of OGPA system has been in force since quite few years prior to the present selections to the post of AEO-II. In other words, this concept has not been introduced for the first time, nor is capable of creating any serious doubt or confusion either among the candidates or among the authorities concerned.
30. Keeping the above position apart, coming to the present case, now a new situation where the Government or the competent authorities have been placed in is - as to how to integrate or equalize or evaluate the different standards of educational qualifications prescribed for selection to the posts of AEO-II.
31. Obviously, three different kinds of individuals with different educational qualifications have been made eligible to apply for the post of AEO-II. The question that sprouted in the minds of the authorities concerned was as to whether it is possible to neutralize the entire process for the purpose of selection to the post of AEO-II from all the applicants with different educational qualifications.
32. Obviously, it was found that it was neither feasible nor possible to equate the Diploma holders, who had their Diploma/Polytechnic qualification with 2/3 years educational career, with that of the Graduates in Agriculture, who had their Degrees with 4/5 years educational career. No need to say much about the inequality between the educational standards of these two sets of candidates. It is obvious that the persons with Polytechnic qualification are less or inferior when compared to higher qualified people, like B.Sc. (Ag.). However, since it was felt that the experience and seniority of these candidates, who had lesser qualification, do stand a chance of competing with the people having higher qualification, like that of B.Sc. (Ag.), it was felt by the Government that the other two categories of candidates i.e., Diploma in Agricultural Polytechnic and B.Sc. Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational) also can be permitted to compete with the Degree holders in B.Sc. (Ag.).
33. In order to evolve a uniform or standardized or scientific method, while selecting the candidates with different qualifications, a ready reckoner was prepared quite some time ago, which was originally meant for the selection of Agriculture Officers. The same was taken as a guide for following the procedure suggested i.e., OGPA. After applying the said standard of OGPA and going by the ready reckoner, selections were made to the post of AEO-II.
34. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants places reliance on Notification No. A2/241/7/2005, dated 20.11.2005, dealing with the qualification, which reads as under:
1. Qualification: The recruitment of Agricultural Extension Officers Grade.II shall be considered with the qualification of a degree with B.Sc. (Ag.) or Diploma holders of Agriculture Polytechnic or B.Sc. Dry land farming (Vocational) on merit basis.
MARKS:
OGPA 75 marks (OGPA 2.00 will be awarded with 55 marks and one mark for every 0.1 increase over 2.00 Overall Grade Point Average, (as in the case of B.Sc.(Ag.) Degree).
Seniority 10 marks @ One mark per year from the year of passing (for completed year) Experience 15 marks @ 4 marks per year for satisfactory service rendered as A.O./Agricultural Consultant (ANTWA), Multy Purpose Extension Officer (M.P.E.O.) on contract basis in the Department of Agriculture subject to a maximum of 15 marks. The service certificate should be issued by the J.D.A. of the concerned District. The service rendered on contract basis in the Agriculture Department in different spells shall be COMPUTED for arriving total period of experience in yeas and there after any part of the year shall be treated as nil.
35. While referring to the marks, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants heavily relied on the language employed "as in the case of B.Sc. (Ag.) Degree." Therefore, it is his specific contention that when all the three kinds of persons are eligible to apply for the post of AEO-II, by way of direct recruitment, the concept of OGPA has to be applied, as indicated under the heading "MARKS", in the said notification.
36. In this regard, it is to be seen that under the said heading, it was mentioned as "O.G.P.A." 75 marks were earmarked, on the basis of awarding OGPA 2.00 with 55 marks.
37. It is to be further seen that subsequent to the notification, the Commissioner and Joint Director of Agriculture, in Memo, dated 16.12.2005, had clarified that the OGPA calculation is applicable to the candidates of B.Sc. (Ag.) only. The relevant portion of the said Memo reads as under:
...this OGPA calculation is applicable to the candidates of B.Sc. (Ag.) only. The calculation of marks in respect of the candidates of Diploma in Agril Polytechnic and B.Sc. Dry land Agril (Vocational) is to be taken into account based on the percentage of marks obtained in their examination duly calculating and limiting to 75% marks and the remaining marks i.e., 25% for the seniority and experience as per orders issued by the Government vide G.O.1 cited....
38. From the above, it is obvious that after deducting 25 percent marks for seniority and experience, only 75 marks are earmarked for computing merit. Precisely, here the question of calculating merit would arise, because some of the candidates applied with Degree in Agriculture from different Universities, who obtained their Degrees by way of awarding marks either by 4-point scale or 10-point scale or traditional system. In such a case, it is but natural for the authorities to think about the integration of all the three types of candidates for the purpose of assessing their merit, inasmuch as, their qualification is the same i.e., B.Sc. (Ag.).
39. The duration of the course of B.Sc. (Ag.) is about 4/5 years, depending upon the University, and whereas the duration of the course of Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic is about 2/3 years. Therefore, automatically, the Diploma holders cannot be equated with the Graduates by any standard. Nevertheless, since they also were made eligible to apply for the post of AEO-II, a feasible and rational method has to be evolved and in that process only, the already existing policy of application of CGPA was applied in order to integrate all the three classes of people with Agriculture B.Sc.
40. In this collection, it is apposite to refer the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association's case 2006 (8) SCJ 427 : (2006) 8 SCC 399 : AIR 2006 SC 2945, wherein the apex Court observed as under.
We are unable to uphold the argument advanced by the petitioners for more than one reason. It is no doubt true, that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and confers equal protection of laws. It clearly prohibits the State from denying persons or class of persons equal treatment provided they are equals and are similarly situated. In our opinion, however, the basis on which the argument proceeds is fallacious and ill-founded. It is well established that Article 14 seeks to prevent or prohibit a person or class of persons from being singled out from others situated similarly. It thus prohibits discrimination or class legislation. It, however, does not prohibit classification if otherwise it is legal, valid and reasonable.
In our judgment, therefore, it is clear that every classification to be legal, valid and permissible, must fulfill the twin-test, namely;
(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which must distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others leaving out or left out; and
(ii) such a differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute or legislation in question.
41. The learned Government Pleader also relied on another decision in Dharam Dutt's case (2004) 1 SCC 712 : AIR 2004 SC 1295, wherein the apex Court held asunder:
56. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The requirements of the validity of legislation by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution are: that the subject-matter of legislation should be a well defined class founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes that subject-matter from others left out, and such differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. The laying down of intelligible differentia does not, however, mean that the legislative classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete.
42. The learned Government Pleader further relied on the decision in MP. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association's case , wherein the apex Court held as under:
14. Article 14, it is trite, does not forbid a reasonable classification.
15. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. See Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. .
16. Constitutional interpretation is a difficult task. Its concept varies from statute to statute, fact to fact, situation to situation and subject-matter to subject-matter. A classification based on educational qualification has been applied by a Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in 1968 in P. Narasinga Rao (supra), wherein it was observed: AIR 1968 3C 349 : 1968 Lab IC 360, Para 4.
It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured. Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection.
43. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is to be accepted to the ' effect that among the Agriculture Graduates also, when there are candidates, who secured marks on traditional basis, there is no need to apply the system of OGPA for them, it is to be seen that the same would amount to creating a separate class in the same class, which is impermissible under law. Therefore, it is imperative for the authorities concerned to evolve a uniform method and the said uniform method is no other than OGPA system, which was adopted in order to avoid a situation of creating a wheel within the wheel for the classes of candidates, who are possessing the qualification of B.Sc. (Ag.).
44. It is to be further seen that in the said notification, there is a mention of 2.00 candidates only. This is applicable for the candidates with 4-point scale. But, the said notification is silent as regards the candidates with 10-point scale. So, there is scope for mistakenly understanding the method of awarding 75 marks. Precisely, for this reason only, perhaps, the clarification in Memo, dated 16.12.2005, has been issued, confining the application of the said system only to Graduates in Agriculture.
45. Coming to the other two classes of people i.e., Diploma holders and the Graduates in other fields of Agriculture, there is no such critical situation as is prevalent in the class of Graduates in Agriculture. All of them have been awarded marks on traditional basis only. When there is uniformity in awarding marks for the other two classes, there is absolutely no discernible reason to apply OGPA system for them.
46. We are of the considered view, even if there is any scope for misreading or misquoting the application of OGPA insofar as the other two classes and also in order to avoid any conflicting situation in the selection process or to remove any ambiguity in that regard, the Memo., dated 16.12.2005, had been issued by the Commissioner & Joint Director of Agriculture, clarifying the same.
47. No doubt, there is a dual stand as regards the first class of Graduates and the other two classes i.e., Diploma holders and Graduates in Dry Land Farming (Vocational). But, we are of the view, for the above said reasons i.e., to harmonize the complex situations, which are likely to lead to a state of total bias, this Court has to necessarily take stock of the entire situation into consideration and test as to whether the procedure adopted by the authorities in the process of selection suffers from any irrationality or discrimination, as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
48. In this connection, the learned Government Pleader relied on a decision in Pratap Singh's case 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 294 (SC) : 2005 (2) SCJ 70 : 2005 (1) An.W.R. 161 (SC) : 2005 (3) ALT 14.3 (DN SC) : (2005) 3 SCC 551 : AIR 2005 SC 2731, wherein the apex Court held as under:
81. Even at the final stage, viz., after he is found to be guilty of commission of an offence, he must be dealt with differently vis-a-vis adult prisoners. Only because his age is to be determined in a case of dispute by the competent Court or the Board in terms of Section 26 of the Act, the same would not mean that the relevant date thereof would be the one on which he is produced before the Board. If such an argument is accepted, the same would result in absurdity as, in a given case, it would be open to the police authorities not to produce him before the Board before he ceases to be juvenile. If he is produced after he ceases to be juvenile, it may not be necessary for the Board to send him in the protective custody or release him on bail as a result whereof he would be sent to the judicial or police custody which would defeat the very purpose for which the Act had been enacted. Law cannot be applied in an uncertain position. Furthermore, the right to have a fair trial strictly in terms of the Act which would include procedural safeguard is a fundamental right of the juvenile. A proceeding against a juvenile must conform to the provisions of the Act.
49. From the above, it is obvious that the interpretation of the Court shall make the provision workable.
50. As already noticed by us, the method of direct recruitment has been introduced for the first time and the other two classes of people with inferior academic qualification were also included. But, while implementing this process in letter and spirit, merit cannot be ignored. Merit sometimes includes the higher educational qualification also. Here higher educational qualification is Graduation in Agriculture, which is the original and first qualification.
51. Furthermore, we may have to revert to the notification, wherein under the heading "Qualification", the qualification has been depicted as under:
1. Qualification: The recruitment of Agricultural Extension Officers Grade.II shall be considered with the qualification of a degree with B.Sc. (Ag.) or Diploma holders of Agriculture Polytechnic or B.Sc. Dry land farming (Vocational) on merit basis.
(emphasis supplied by us)
52. Therefore, while dealing with the three classes of candidates for the purpose of recruitment to the post of AEO-II, merit shall not be put to stake. Nevertheless, the eligibility of competition with the class of higher academic qualification i.e., Graduates in Agriculture, cannot also be ignored. A line has to be drawn between these three classes for the purpose of assessing the relative merit.
53. As a matter of fact, but for the representation made by the other two classes of persons i.e., Diploma holders and Degree holders in the other branch, these two classes would not have been allowed to compete with the B.Sc. (Ag.) candidates for the purpose of selection to the post of AEO-II by direct recruitment. Accordingly, the object of the Government has been achieved, inasmuch as, about 59 Diploma holders have been selected. Otherwise, these 59 posts also would have been filled up with B.Sc. (Ag.) candidates only.
54. Coming to the other aspect i.e., the irrationality in the application of OGPA is concerned, it is the specific contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, basing on the ready reckoner for conversion of various scales, points and percentages to 4-point scale, the candidate who scored 35 per cent was awarded 6.50 with the candidate who obtained Degree with 10-point scale. Similarly, the candidate who scored 35 per cent marks obtained on traditional system was equated with 2.00 with the candidate who obtained marks in 4-point scale. Eventually, the marks to be awarded as per the G.O., are shown as 55.
55. From the above, it is to be understood that a person with Graduation in Agriculture, who secured 35 marks on traditional basis, would be treated as having secured 55 marks reckoning to 6.50 and 2.00 in cases of candidates who obtained Degree with 10-point scale and 4-point scale, respectively.
56. In this regard, it is to be further seen and as already pointed out, it is the marks, but not the percentage that is to be taken into consideration vis-a-vis the secured 75 marks.
57. Similarly, in case of the other two classes, who secured their marks on traditional basis is on percentage basis. For Eg: A person who secured 35 per cent marks have to be brought down to the level of 75 marks, which is the qualifying mark, and in which event, taking into consideration the actual scoring of marks on percentage basis has to be necessarily scaled down to 75. In that process, the qualifying mark naturally would get lowered.
58. It cannot be forgotten that whether it is OGPA or condensing the marks for those who secured marks on traditional basis to 75 is only meant for assessing their qualifying marks of 75 only.
59. Therefore, the application of OGPA to the Agricultural Graduates on one hand, and Diploma holders and Degree holders in other branch on the other, who passed their respective courses on different standards, cannot be treated as equal. The reason is their educational qualification. For Eg: A Diploma holder, who secured 50 marks cannot be treated as equal to a Graduate who also secured 50 marks or even less, for that matter. This does not that such classification should lead to any apparent and unreasonable classification.
60. But, as already pointed out, the partly, as sought for by the applicants, along with the Graduates cannot be made in view of the Graduates cannot be made in view of their higher qualification and also the peculiar circumstances of their obtaining the Degrees. The former obtained Degrees on two different point scales and traditional basis, whereas the latter obtained the Degrees or Diploma purely on traditional basis. Therefore, in order to unify these two classes for the purpose of competition, a method, which is logical or at least appears to be logical, is to be adopted and if adopted, the same cannot be find fault with by this Court, unless and until the same results in absolute discrimination and arbitrary.
61. As already noticed, because of the introduction of direct recruitment, for the first time, permitting Diploma holders and other Graduates in the other field to compete with the Degree holders in B.Sc. (Ag.), 59 candidates with Diploma qualification were selected. Therefore, it is difficult for us to say that there is any discrimination. On the other hand, because of the present method, there is deprivation to the people with higher qualification and the benefit had been transmitted to the people with lesser qualification.
62. Even if there are any small areas of anomalies to understand the situation, this Court cannot interfere with the method adopted, inasmuch as, there is no apparent action of discrimination or that the other classes of persons were totally denied of their employment avenues.
63. Of course, this Court can only suggest the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, to have a second look at the adaptation of OGPA system and make necessary amendments to the same, as and when felt necessary. But, this Court cannot take up the task of carving out any specific method or make amendments to the method adopted by the Government or competent authority, as the case may be, inasmuch as, the same is not within the jurisdiction of this Court and totally within the administrative domain of the Government. This Court also cannot supplement any new scheme or make amendment to the existing scheme that has been adopted.
64. Another incidental aspect that this Court is impelled to consider is, the selectees, who are the affected persons, in the said selection process have already taken charge of the post to which they were selected and subsequently they were promoted on different dates. That apart, even as on the date of filing of the O.As., before the Tribunal, these selected candidates were not impleaded as parties, either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions.
65. In Service Law Jurisprudence, it is essential to implead the affected persons also as parties to the lis. None of these selected persons were made as parties either in the O.As., or in the writ petitions. Therefore, any order passed contrary to the interest of the said affected persons would be improper and on that score also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
66. In the result, all the abovementioned writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned common orders, passed by the Tribunal, in the respective O.As. However, there shall be no order as to costs.