Gauhati High Court
All Assam Extension Officer'S (Credit) ... vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 24 July, 2001
JUDGMENT
R.S. Mongia, C.J. (Acting)
1. All Assam Extension Officers (Credit) Association through its President had filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Order 3 and Order 5 of the Assam Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Recruitment and Promotions of Block Development Officers) Service Orders, 1990, which were issued on 2nd June, 1990. We would hereinafter refer to Orders 3 and 5 of the said Orders. But before doing that, little facts may be noticed. The Officers known as Extension Officer (Credit) belong to Directorate of Rural Development, whereas the Extension Officer (Women and Children) and Extension Officer (Panchayat) belong to Directorate of Panchayat and Community Development. The pay scale of Extension Officer (Credit) was Rs. 1475-3825 PM; whereas the pay scale of Extension Officer (Women and Children) and Extension Officer (Panchayat) was Rs. 1285-3075 PM. By order dated 27th June, 1989 the State Govt. amalgamated the two Directorates mentioned above with effect from 1.7.1989. The order reads as under :
"No. PD B. 155/85/Pt. V/9 : In the interest of public service and administrative convenience, the Governor of Assam is pleased to amalgamate the "Directorate of Panchayat & Community Development and the Directorate of Rural Development" into one Directorate with effect from 1.7.1989. The combined Directorate will be named as Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Development."
2. It may be observed here that by the order dated 8th September, 1989 the State Govt. conferred the Gazetted status to the Extension Officer (Credit) of the Panchayat & Roral Development Department with immediate effect. Such Gazetted status was not conferred on Extension Officer (Woman & Childred) and Extension Officer (Panchayat). Even after the amalgamation, referred to above, on 4th June, 1991 official Gradation List determining the inter-se seniority of the Extension Officer (Credit) was issued, meaning thereby that the Extension Officer (Women and Children) and Extension Officer (Panchayat) was not intermingled for the purpose of seniority with Extension Officer (Credit).
3. Orders 3 and 5 of the Service Orders which had been impugned may be noticed at this stage.
"Pending flnalisation of the said Service Rules to be framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Governor of Assam is pleased to make the following orders in respect of filling up of the posts of Block Development Officer under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, namely:
.....
.....
3. Recruitment to the post of Block Development Officer shall be made on the basis of the procedure indicated below -
(1) 40% of the posts of Block Development Officers shall be filled up by direct recruitment through the Commission by means of a competitive examination in such a manner as may be decided by the Governor in consultation with the Commission.
(2) 20% of the posts of Block Development Officers shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Extension Officers (Panchayat) under Panchayat and Community Development Directorate.
(3) 20% of the posts of Block Development Officers shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Extension Officers (Women & Children) under Panchayat and Community Development Directorate.
(4) 20% of the posts of Block Development Officers shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Extension Officers (Credit) under Rural Development Directorate.
.....
.....
(5) Conditions for promotion - For the purpose of being eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer a candidate belonging to the cadres of Extension Officer (Panchayat) and Extension Officer (Women and Children) must have rendered minimum 5 years of continuous service as such for Graduate and 10 years for under Graduate on the fist January of the year in which the selection is made. A candidate belonging to the cadre of the Extension Officer (Credit) must have rendered minimum 5 years of continuous service as such on the first January of the year in which the selection is made."
4. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the Writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that Orders 3 and 5 of the Service Orders referred to above, made unequals as equals. This argument proceeded on the basis that the post of Extension Officer (Credit) was higher in status than the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) and Extension Officer (Women & Children). This was on the basis that the pay scale of Extension Officer (Credit) was higher as compared to the pay scale of the Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) and further even gazetted status had been conferred on Extension Officer (Credit) which had not been conferred on Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (Panchayat). It has now been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant (Writ petitioner) that prior to the issuance of the Service Orders an Extension Officer (Credit) was to be promoted as Assistant Project Officer and then as Senior B.D.O. whereas, the Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) were to be promoted as B.D.O. which was a post in a pay scale lower than the pay scale of the Assistant Project Officer. Learned Single Judge held that the two categories of Extension Officers referred to above, were unequal and therefore the impugned Orders No. 3 and 5 reproduced above could not stand. However, learned Single Judge further directed that a joint seniority list of all the Extension Officers of both the categories be drawn up (naturally on the basis of length of service as Extension Officer) and then promotion to promotional posts be made from the integrated seniority list so published. It was further directed to frame the Service Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is this last part of the judgment where the learned Single Judge has directed the official respondents to draw a combined seniority list which had been challenged in the present appeal by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that perhaps the appellant may not have any objection if the other category of Extension Officers i.e. Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) are made equal to the Extension Officer (Credit) and then considered for promotion in their own quata as has been prescribed by the Order 3 of the Service Orders. He submits that either by some notification issued in accordance with law they are made equal to the Extension Officer (Credit) or some more stringent qualifications are laid down for the purpose of promotion of the category of Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) for the purpose of promotion to B.D.O. as compared with the qualifications laid down for promotion of Extension Officer (Credit). Admitedly, as on today, even after revision of pay scales in the year 1998, the pay scales of Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) are lower as compared to the pay scale of Extension Officer (Credit). Their pay scales are:
Extension Officer (Panchayat) Rs. 3490-90-4480-120-4600-EB-120-5200-175-6600-250-8100.
Extension Officer (Women & Children) Rs. 3490-90-4480-120-4600-EB-120-5200-175-6600-250-8100.
As compared to the aforesaid pay scales the pay scale of Extension Officer (Credit) is Rs. 3760-90-4480-120-4960-EB-120-5200-175-6600-250-8100-325-9400.
5. In other words, even as on today, the Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) are being treated lower in status than the Extension Officer (Credit). Order 5 of the Service Orders made Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P), who are Graduate, equal to the Extension Officer (Credit) for the purpose of promotion as B.D.O. though, as observed above, they are lower in status. If they are prompted in their own quata, yet they may steal a march over Extension Officer (Credit) who may be promoted in their quata to the rank of B.D.O. depending on the length of service. In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby he has quashed Orders 3 and 5 of the Service Orders. If the respondents wish to make the Extension Officer (W&C) and the Extension Officer (P) eligible for the post of B.D.O., they can do so by keeping in mind the observations made above. Till that is done, the Extension Officer (W&C) and Extension Officer (P) would not be entitled to promotion to the post of B.D.O.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the directions by the learned Single Judge that there should be a combined Seniority List of all the Extension Officers cannot hold good. There cannot be combined Seniority List of unequals. The seniority list is always drawn primarily for the purpose of promotion to the nest rank. The amalgamation of the two cadres was only for the administrative purpose keeping the identity of each cadre distinct and separate. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the directions given by the learned Single Judge that there should be a combined Seniority List and then the promotions should be in accordance with the combined Seniority List on meritoum seniority basis, are liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. Subject to the observations made above, this Writ Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
7. As a matter of abundant caution, we may observe that if all the categories are made qual in view of the aforesaid observations, there cannot be any Bar to the officer respondents to keep separate quota for the posts of B.D.O. for the separate categories of Extension Officers.