Madras High Court
State Agriculture And Horticulture vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 February, 2010
Author: Prabha Sridevan
Bench: Prabha Sridevan, B.Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11/02/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.5655 of 2009 and Writ Petition (MD)Nos.707, 1790, 1920, 2368, and 2983 of 2009 and Writ Petition (MD)Nos. 11449 and 17218 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2&3 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.5655/2009 M.P.(MD)Nos.1/2009 in WP(MD)Nos.707, 1790, 1920 & 2368 of 2009 & 11449 of 2008 M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 in WP(MD)Nos.707 & 2983 of 2009 W.P.(MD)No.5655/2009 State Agriculture and Horticulture Diploma Holders Association (unemployed wing), No.494, Nagaveni Hagar, Regn.No.72/2008, Balakrishnapuram Post, Dindigul-624 005, through its Secretary V.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Director/Commissioner of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Employment and Training, O/o.Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32. 4.S.Periyakaruppan 5.S.Saravanan 6.Veerapandi S.Arumugam 7.Nandha Kishore 8.S.Kosalraman 9.Madhumathi 10.Gopalakrishnan 11.Murugesa Boopathi 12.Shanmugam 13.A.Raja 14.A.Mageshwari 15.A.Bnhuvaneshwari 16.Esakkimuthu 17.N.Balachandran 18.N.Subramanian 19.S.Panneer Selvam 20.Palanivel (Respondents 6 to 20 were impleaded as per order dated 24.07.2009 made in M.P.(MD)No.4/2009 in WP(MD)No.5655/2009) Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Letter No.33575/AA4/2007-4, dated 25.01.2008 on the file of the respondent No.1 and the proceedings in Ka.Pa.Ni./167253/07(1), dated 27.02.2009, on the file of Respondent No.2, quashing the same as illegal and consequently directing Respondents 1 and 2 to re-notify the 1707 posts of Assistant Agriculture Officers and fill the same in accordance with law. !For Petitioners ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy in all the WPs, except WP 17218/2009 For Petitioner in WP 17218/2009 ... Mr.Thomas T.Jacob ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.S.Raman, 1 to 3 in WP ... Advocate General. 5655/2009& Assisted by the respondents R.Janakiramulu, in other WPs Spl.Govt.Pleader & Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, AGP. :ORDER
PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J W.P.(MD)No.5655/2009:
This public interest litigation is filed by an Association called Unemployed Diploma Holders in Agriculture and Horticulture. About 4500 Diploma Holders in Agriculture and Horticulture have been waiting since 1988 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. They have no other employment avenue.
2.Recruitment process was conducted for this post in January, 2009. According to the petitioner Association, this selection process was completely arbitrary, the alleged interview was an eye-wash and since there has been irregularity in the recruitment on a large scale and it is alleged that money was collected from each candidate who was selected. The Association claims that thus this petition is filed in public interest, and therefore though the subject really involves Service Law, this public interest litigation is maintainable.
3.Briefly, it is stated that there has been a long wait for the unemployed Diploma Holders who were hoping to be appointed to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. There was a recruitment ban during 1991 to 1992, which prohibited recruitment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer, by G.O.Ms.No.1254, Agriculture (AAV) Department, dated 28.06.1988. So the respondent had upgraded the posts of Field Demonstration Officer and filled the vacancies in the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. Therefore, 100% recruitment was done only from Field Demonstration Officers, with the result the members of the petitioner Association, who were qualified and were eligible to be appointed, were overlooked and many of the members had crossed the 40 year barrier.
4.The respondents commenced the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and call letters were issued on 02.01.2009. Since the representations of the petitioner Association were not considered, the Association filed W.P.(MD)No.8297 of 2008 for a direction to consider the members of the Association to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers without prescribing any age limit as a one time concession. This writ petition is still pending. According to the petitioner, the recruitment took place without proper notification, there was no written test and the interviews were conducted allocating only two minutes for each candidate. There was no notification issued for the recruitment on such a massive scale. 19 persons, who participated in the interviews but not selected, have filed W.P.(MD)No.1030/2009 and an interim injunction was granted by this Court. Thereafter, it was modified and 19 posts have been ordered to be reserved by order dated 26.02.2009. This writ petition is also pending. Many other candidates have filed writ petitions for a direction to the respondents to appointment them, since they were dropped from the unfair selection process. Their writ petitions are also pending.
5.According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 neither have the experience nor the technical caliber but, yet they have been appointed. It is alleged that the recruitment process was not publicly notified through Employment Exchanges and the selection was purely based on special discretion of the respondents. Specific cases are cited, were persons who had State Level Seniority in MBC and SC Categories were not selected. There was no transparency and it is alleged that one single officer travelled to all the Districts in the State and conducted the interview. There was a deviation from the method adopted in the year 1991. The entire process is vitiated by arbitrariness and lack of transparency and therefore the selection process should be set aside.
6.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that guidelines had been laid down in 2007 (5) CTC 561 - Sivakumari v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam, which were not followed. There was no public notification and no roster publication. 50 marks were allotted to interview, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In support of the said contention, learned counsel referred to (i)AIR 1981 SC 487 - Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib;
(ii)(1985) 4 SCC 417 - Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; (iii)1995 Supp. (1) SCC 206 - Satpal vs. State of Haryana. As regards the possible attack on the maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel relied on 1981 (1) SCC Page 246 - Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India.
7.Learned Advocate General Mr.P.S.Raman submitted that there has been no violation of the rules. The present recruitment is governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service and it has been strictly followed. Even in 1991, though the notification referred to interview, in fact, it was not conducted. The Rules do not require written test. As regards financial impropriety, apart from the bald allegations that in many cases Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs were received, thee is no affidavit by any disappointed candidate swearing to the fact that he paid Rs.3 lakhs or Rs.5 lakhs, as the case may be, to any particular named persons. Learned Advocate General submitted that 4004 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for 1707 posts in a ratio of 1:3 and therefore it cannot be alleged that there was no fair-play in the appointment. According to the learned Advocate General, apart from the posts which have been directed to be reserved by this Court, 1595 posts have been filled-up.
8.An additional affidavit was also filed naming about 11 persons who had obtained high marks but were not selected and persons with low marks had been selected. As regards the averment in the additional affidavit, learned Advocate General, after getting instructions from the officers, submitted that all the 11 candidates mentioned had actually been selected but the results have been withheld because of the pendency of the writ petitions. As regards the list of candidates who had allegedly obtained low marks had been selected, learned Advocate General submitted that actually those candidates had not got lower marks and the two, who have got lower marks, were selected because they were the highest in the MBC quota and since the number of successful MBC candidates fell one short of the number required for MBC quota candidates. According to the learned Advocate General, even the additional affidavit deserves to be rejected. Learned Advocate General relied on 2004 (3) SCC 349 - Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B. and 1998 (7)( SCC 270 - to attack the maintainability of the writ petition since it relates to service jurisprudence.
9.According to the learned Advocate General, a reading of the Full Bench judgment 2007 (5) CTC 561 (supra) would show, that the question that was actually required to be answered by the Full Bench, the Full Bench has not declared that the guidelines had to be followed by all. It was submitted that the Rules governing appointment of the Assistant Agricultural Officers are Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Government was bound to follow the Rules. Learned Advocate General submitted that Statewide seniority has been followed. He also referred to 2008 (4) SCC 619 - Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh; 1997 (9) SCC 151 - All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India.
10.Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 10.12.2009 in W.A.(MD)Nos.446 to 461 of 2008, batch, where the order of the learned Single Judge, quashing the Government Order relating to appointment to the post of Lab Assistants, was challenged and the Division Bench held that G.O., which was challenged in the writ petition was, an administrative order and it cannot override the special rules for Tamil Nadu Public Health and Subordinate Service which have been issued in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench held that the G.O. cannot override the special rules and when there is a conflict between the G.O. and the statutory service rules, the G.O. must be declared as null and void. It was also found in that case that a major chunk of vacancies was allotted exclusively to in-service candidates thereby excluding the participation of fresh candidates. The Division Bench relied on the guidelines found in 2007 (5) CTC 561 (supra). Therefore, the Division Bench held that the Government has to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which is followed by the Full Bench.
11.We will now look at the decisions cited before us.
12.Maintainability:
(a)In 1981 (1) SCC 246 - Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court rejected the objection raised that since the petitioner was an unrecognized association, the petition was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached the Supreme court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. A broad-based and people-oriented processual jurisprudence of our country envisages access to justice through class actions, public interest litigation, etc. and therefore they unhesitatingly held that the narrow concept of cause of action, etc. has become obsolescent. But, in this case, the objection raised by the learned Advocate General is not with regard to the petitioner Association maintaining a writ petition but as to whether public interest litigation can be maintained in service jurisprudence.
(b)In 2004(3) SCC 349 - Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court referred to 1998(7) SCC 273 - Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained and that the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated and that the High Courts should throw them out on the basis of Duryodhan Sahu case.
13.Legality of Test:
(a)In 2008(4) CC 618 - Sadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sueikh, the recruitment related to 5500 Armed Constables. The recruitment process was attacked on various grounds. Some of them are common to the grounds raised in this writ petition, in particular it was submitted therein that the allotment of 50 marks for personal interview was illegal and the consideration of huge number of candidates within a span of only nine days. The Supreme Court found that the complaint relating to allotment of 50 marks was not argued seriously before it and therefore that complaint was rejected. However, the Supreme Court noted that these 50 marks were distributed among as many as six factors and therefore there was nothing wrong in the allotment of 50 marks. More importantly, the Supreme Court noted that "this is apart from the fact that the unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process could not turn back and call names to the system." Therefore, the only contention that was before the Supreme Court was regarding the "enormousness of the number of candidates interviewed and the possible inability on the part of the Interview Board to complete the interviews in a proper manner." The Supreme Court held that the required time for an interview would differ from post to post and while as regards a candidate for the post of Revenue Officer in a village, who has to maintain revenue records,the interview may have to be conducted in detail, "such is certainly not the requirement for the constables" and "therefore, even less than three minutes' time was enough for each candidate." In that case, what was filed as a writ petition was converted by the High Court into a public interest litigation. The Supreme Court observed that a roving enquiry on factual aspects is not permissible and without any justification the High Court had converted a writ petition into a public interest litigation.
(b)In (1985) 4 SCC 417 - Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, the recruitment was for 61 posts in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other Allied Services. 6000 candidates applied for recruitment. 1300 candidates obtained more than 45% of marks. All the 1300 and more candidates were invited for interview, which lasted for almost half-a-year. Allegations were made of unfair and dishonest selection tainted by nepotism, favoritism, casteism and political patronage, which was denied by the State. Since the candidates invited for interview were 20 times of number of available vacancy, it was alleged the area of arbitrariness was considerably in large. The Division Bench of the High Court wondered why the brilliant candidates who had done so well in the written examination faired so poorly in the viva voce test. The Supreme Court thereafter referred to certain texts on how long interview should last, etc. and if a innumerable number is interviewed, the interview may be casual and superficial and would widen the area of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court also observed that it is always the practice of the Union Public Service Commission to call for interview candidates representing "not more than twice or thrice the number of available vacancies"
and "we are therefore of the view that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The Supreme Court then referred to Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib - 1981 (1) SCC 722 and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan - (1981) 4 SCC 159 and noted that selection for entry into public service must be by open competitive examination, which "may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in the given case." In fact, they said that "it is not for the court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test" and "there may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test." They then compared the advantage that a written examination may have over the viva voce test. While conceding that there can be no written test to evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, effectiveness in discussion and such other personal qualities, the Supreme Court explained Ajay Hasia case by referring the observation in Lila Dhar case to the effect that while in the case of admission to a college where the candidate's personality has not yet developed and therefore weightage should be given to the performance in the written examination, but, "in the case of service to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of major personality, interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirement being satisfied." In paragraph 30 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court underscored the importance that Public Service commission occupies pivotal place in selecting best and finest talent of persons who are honest, upright and independent and who are not swayed by the political winds blowing in the country. They rejected the challenge to the validity of the selection but, however, given certain directions which really arise out of the facts of the said case.
(c)In (1997) 9 SCC 151 - All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that "there can be no rigid or hard and fast rule that the interview marks can only be 15% and not more" and "unreasonableness depend on the facts of each case". In fact, they quoted from Lila Dhar case to state that percentage is a matter for determination by experts and unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives, the courts shall not pronounce upon it.
(d)In (1995) Supp.(1) SCC 206 - Satpal vs. State of Haryana, the recruitment was for the post of Patwaris. 85 marks were reserved for viva voce test. The High Court came to the conclusion that this left room for arbitrary selection. The Supreme Court observed that apart from the fact that percentage of marks allotted for interview was high as 85, the fact that as many as 400 to 600 candidates were interviewed on a single day also "provide reason to believe that the selection process tended to be arbitrary". Therefore, they held that the selection process was tainted.
(e)In AIR 1981 SC 487 - Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, which was for selection to a College, the Supreme held that "the allocation of as high as percentage as 33-1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained".
However, in that case, the Supreme Court felt that it would not be justified in setting aside the selection, after a period of about 18 months and therefore they gave certain directions.
(f)The Full Bench decision in 2007(5) CTC 561 - Sivakumar, vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam is relied by the petitioner as supporting their case. But, according to the State that decision does not squarely apply to the present case. We will therefore deal with this case in some detail. In the said decision, the question whether a person already employed in a private aided school can be deprived of the opportunity of seeking employment to an office under the State was framed by the Full Bench. It is seen that the core issue raised in the writ petition is as to whether a candidate who gets appointment in a private aided school loses his right to be sponsored by the employment exchange to a Government post or not. The Division Bench concluded that a person employed in a private aided school had no right to have his name retained in the live register of Employment Exchange. The Full Bench, therefore, examined the statutory provisions governing the functions and role of the Employment Exchange. The Full Bench observed that the question would not have arisen if the respondents had taken note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that employment exchanges cannot act as the only source of recruitment. In 1987(3) SCC 308 - Union of India and others v. N.Hargobal, the Supreme Court held "there is no provision in the Act which obliges an employer to make appointments through the agency of Employment Exchanges" and that "in the absence of a better method of recruitment, the restriction that employment in Government Departments should be through the medium of Employment Exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.". Thereafter, in 1996(6) SCC 216 - Excise Superintendent, Malkapuram, Krishna District v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others, the Supreme court held that "6.Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchanges should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to the seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." Therefore, in that context, the Full Bench said that if these procedures had been followed, namely "(i)Notify the Employment Exchanges,
(ii)Issue publications in newspapers having wide circulation, inviting Applications; and
(iii)Display the notification in the notice boards of the respective offices or make announcements in the media, then this problem would not have arisen." At paragraph 35, the Full Bench referred to the submission made by the Additional Advocate General who said that as per Rule 10-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is a statutory rules, under Article 309 of the Constitution, recruitment to posts falling outside the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission will have to be done by notifying the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange and the Additional Advocate General had relied on Hargopal's case to support his contention. The Full Bench categorically observed at paragraph 36:
"However, we are not now concerned with the question. The question before this Bench is as to whether a person who is employed in a Private Aided School can be deprived of his right to continue in the live register of the Employment Exchange and to be sponsored for a post in Government service."
Therefore, the Full Bench decision is not one which can be relied on by the petitioners to hold that since the guidelines laid down therein had not been followed, the entire selection process must be quashed. Further, when a specific submission was made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State had to follow the statutory rules under Article 309, the Full Bench categorically said that they are not concerned with that question.
14.In the present case, even the materials seem to indicate that all the members of the Association have registered themselves in the employment exchange. If so, their grievance that the recruitment was made only through employment exchange lacks strength. If a complaint had come from an aspirant who has not registered himself with the Employment Exchange, then the contention that there should have been a public notice calling for applications may be reasonable. But, in this case, no such objection can be raised. Further, the Rules themselves would show the recruitment could have been done only through Employment Exchange.
15.The Special Rules pertaining to Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service are identical to the Rule 10-A of the General Rules for Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service and they provide that where the recruitment to posts which are outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, recruitment shall be made only by calling for names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange.(emphasis supplied). The Rule also provides in respect of specialised posts where no candidates are available with the Employment Exchange, the appointment authority should obtain a certificate of non-availability from the Employment Exchange and advertisement should be made in prominent daily newspapers giving the number of vacancies and indicating the qualifications, etc. Therefore, normal recruitment is made by calling for names from Employment Exchange. Publication in prominent daily newspapers is provided only when the candidates required for specialised posts are not available in Employment Exchange. The Rule regarding recruitment provides that it would be made subject to the rule of reservation of posts by "subjecting the candidates to an oral interview and, if necessary, a short written test which can be evaluated in a short time." (emphasis supplied). Therefore, it is clear, in this case, the respondents did not commit any illegality in calling for the names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange. The Rule does not provide for advertisement in prominent daily newspapers. The respondents did not commit any illegality by conducting only an oral interview. The written test is not mandatory. It is only where it is considered to be necessary. It has been stated by the learned Advocate General that since more than 3500 candidates participated, the Government decided having a written test shall not be required, since it could not be evaluated in short time. We do not think this decision suffers from any infirmity. After all, the rule only provides for oral interview.
16.The petitioner had enclosed the call letter which was issued in 1991 selection, which shows that the candidate was asked to appear for the interview and that he should be ready to write a written test. In the counter, it is averred and the learned Advocate General also stated that in fact no written test was conducted and in the present case since there were thousands of candidates, it was felt that it was not necessary to conduct a written test. Therefore, this ground that because written tests were not conducted, the entire selection process would be vitiated cannot be accepted.
17.As regards the main allegation, it is stated in the additional counter affidavit that it was not a single person who has conducted the entire interview but, it was a team comprised of six members and they were divided into two committees and interview was conducted at various centres as per the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is further stated that out of 50 marks, 15 marks was given to seniority in the employment exchange, 10 out of 50 for diploma marks and 25 to technical caliber. Rule of Reservation and communal rotation was also strictly complied with. The counter gives a chart of the dates on which the interviews were conducted on various days. The candidates sponsored by employment exchanges were 4004. 313 were deleted due to over age and lack of qualification. 185 were absent. Therefore, 3506 attended the interview. Initially, the maximum age limit prescribed in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service ("the Rules" in short) for appointment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer was 30 in respect of OC/MBC and DC and five years more than that in respect of SC/ST. The maximum age limit for entering into Government Services was relaxed by five years to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order as per G.O.Ms.No.98, P & A.R Department, dated 17.07.2006. Since there was no direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers from the year 1990, more than thousands of Diploma Holders in Agriculture and Horticulture have crossed the age limit. Therefore, the Government considered the matter again and once again relaxed the upper age limit by five years for direct appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers and granted permission to the commissioner of Agriculture in Chennai to fill-up 1707 vacant posts through Employment Exchange, as per G.O.Ms.No.275 Agri(AA4) Department, dated 08.09.20008. Therefore, the maximum age limit now prescribed for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was 45 as against 35 years for SC/ST candidates and 40 in respect of others as against the original 30 years as per the Rules, as a one time concession in Agriculture Department Only. Therefore, within a period of two years, i.e. once in 2006 and again in 2008 five years relaxation was given to the age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.457, Agriculture (AA5) Department, dated 28.7.1993, and based on the policy decision taken by the Government that the then incumbents of Field Demonstration Officers were upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers in a phased manner, after 21 days of special training. Some Lab Assistants were also promoted as Assistant Agricultural Officers. This was a long time process from the year 1993 to 2007 and it was decided that the total post of Assistant Agricultural Officer should not exceed 4500. Therefore, during this period the whole Department was restructured. During the period of restructuring, there could be no appointment by direct recruitment of Assistant Agricultural Officer. It is, after the restructuring of the Agriculture Department, to ameliorate the sufferings of diploma holders in Agriculture and Horticulture, relaxation of age limit was made twice and the Government had taken into consideration the plight of the unemployed diploma holders and a policy decision was taken.
18.The post of Assistant Agricultural Officer is a field level post and they are the terminal staff who bring the day to day development of technology in Agriculture/ Horticulture to the farmers of remote areas. The interview was conducted to find out whether the candidates possess experience in physical work at grass root level and to judge their technical calibre.
19.Though allegations have been made that more than 300 to 500 candidates were interviewed a day, the chart would show that the maximum number of persons interviewed in a day were 200. In fact, in 2008(4) CC 618 - Sadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sueikh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that considering the nature of the job, 3 minutes taken was enough to interview a candidate. There again, what was necessary was to see the physical fitness and their intelligence level. The Advocate General informed us that on some days the interview extended over 10 hours.
20.In this case, the Rules provide for recruitment only from Employment Exchange. There is no complaint before us from a person who is not registered in the Employment Exchange on the ground that had there been a public notice, he would have appeared for the interview. All the aggrieved persons have been registered in the Employment Exchanges, appeared for the interview but had not been selected. The Rules provide only for oral test. It clearly says that only if it is necessary written test would be held. Even in the 1991 selection, the notification referred to a written test only as a possibility. The wordings of the notification itself makes it clear that the candidates should be ready if necessary for a written test. In fact, if the State had not adhered to the statutory rules, there should have been complaints from the persons who have registered in the Employment Exchanges that when the only sources was Employment Exchange as per the Rules, the Government cannot recruit from any other source. In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench in the unreported case (W.A.(MD)Nos.446 to 461 of 2008, batch) referred to supra, clearly states that "administrative instructions cannot override the statutory rules".
21.We see from the counter that it is not as if the Government had been insensitive to the plight of these diploma holders who had been prevented from being appointed because of the ban. They had relaxed the age once which was a relaxation that was given to all Government Recruitments. But since there was no appointment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer because of the restructuring of the Department, the Government considering the plight of the diploma holders relaxed the age limit once again by another period of five years. Therefore, the minimum age for SC/ST candidates was extended from 35 years to 45 years and for other candidates from 30 to 40 years. This was a policy decision and the limit to which the Courts may interfere with this, especially considering the relaxation twice, is very limited. One of the grievance raised was that the Government had failed to take state-wise seniority in the Employment Exchanges. It is affirmed on record that the seniority was only statewide seniority. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner had attacked that certain deserving persons had not been selected. We have already seen that this attack was baseless and they have, in fact, been selected and publication of their selection could not be made only because of the pendency of the writ petition.
22.The decisions referred to or relied on repeat the legal position that interference by Court in the recruitment process is limited only to cases where the oblique motives and the injustices proven are apparent. In this regard, of course allegations are made regarding lack of transparency and recruitment for extraneous considerations. But, without specific allegations being made, it is difficult for us to entertain these allegations. Had the alleged wide scale corruption or lack of fair-play in selection been obvious, we would not have hesitated to interfere and the decisions where it is laid down that in service jurisprudence writ petitions in the guise of public interest litigation cannot be entertained would not have restrained us. But, in this case it appears to be only a grievance of the disappointed candidates, and nothing more else and in those circumstances, we cannot permit it as a public interest litigation. It is more in the nature of an ordinary writ petition. The facts placed before us only indicate that the Rules and the procedures have been followed when recruitment was made to as many as 1707 posts and when there are so many unemployed persons have been waiting for more than 17 years, there is bound to be some heart burning and frustration. But on that ground we cannot quash the entire selection process.
23.From the above, we are able to see that
(a)the recruitment was only in accordance with the Rules.
(b)The Rules provide for drawing candidates only from Employment Exchange and this has been done. The Rules only provide for an oral interview and therefore non-conduct of written test cannot vitiate the selection process.
(c)The Supreme Court has held that there may be tests where the only proper method of selection may be viva voce test and therefore we cannot reject the selection purely on the ground that 50% of marks was allotted to oral interview.
(d)The Supreme Court has also held that it is for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case.
(e)The selection of 1707 candidates have been made from out of a pool drawn in the ratio of 1:3 and this ratio has also been accepted by the Supreme Court, which has held that number of candidates to be called for interview cannot exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled.
(f)The allegation of monetary consideration is vague and lacks details.
(g)The long wait of the candidates has been taken into consideration by the Government, which has given the benefit of age relaxation twice.
24.In these circumstances, we are unable to see any apparent mala fide or illegality in the selection process for us to quash it entirely, when more than 1000 persons have already been appointed and taken charge. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. is also dismissed.
W.P.(MD)Nos.707, 1790, 1920, 2368, and 2983 of 2009 and 11449 and 17218 of 2008.
In view of the above order in W.P.(MD)No.5655 of 2009, these writ petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.
gb To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Agriculture, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director/Commissioner of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Employment and Training, O/o.Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai-32.