Judgment : 1. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Diploma Holder’s Association (unemployed), represented by the then Secretary, M. Jayaraman, has challenged G.O. Ms. No. 361, Agriculture (AA5) Department, dated 30.6.1995, as illegal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and contested the case. 3. The cause of action for issuance of the above Government Order is as follows: In G.O. Ms. No. 457, Agriculture (AA5) Department, dated 27. 1993, a policy decision was taken by the Government to promote/upgrade all the Field Demonstration Officers and Assistant Agricultural Officers in a phased manner, so that they would be no post of Field Demonstration Officers in the Agricultural Department, after all the present incumbents of the post of Field Demonstration Officer, were promoted/upgraded as Assistant Agricultural officers and that there should be no recruitment to the post of Field Demonstration Officers in future. The petitioner’s association has challenged the said Government Order on the ground that their chances of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer would be effected as a ratio of 70:30, prescribed between the promotion and direct recruitment. While testing the validity of the above said Government Order in O.A. No. 5237 of 1993, the Tribunal, after considering the service rules and the interest of the members of the association, by order dated 13. 1994, directed that the respondents therein to give due attention of relevant details of the proposed re-organised cadre and the transitional arrangements during the interim period, formulate the rules covering ll essential details and thereafter, take action in accordance with such rules. The Tribunal, has further observed that, “Policy decisions of the Government relating to service matters should be translated into rules before implementation, when they have the effect of departing or varying the existing rules. Action contrary to rules cannot be based on executive instructions. Such executive instructions can only relate to matters not covered by the rules by way of supplementing the rules, but they cannot supplant or modify the rules. Accordingly, we direct that action with reference to the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 457, Agriculture Department, dated 27. 1993 should be taken after issue of comprehensive rules to give effect to the policies indicated therein, covering all relevant aspects relating to the cadre as proposed. Accordingly, we direct that action with reference to the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 457, Agriculture Department, dated 27. 1993 should be taken after issue of comprehensive rules to give effect to the policies indicated therein, covering all relevant aspects relating to the cadre as proposed. Till that is done, appointments should be made only in conformity with the existing rules.” 4. Based on the directions of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5237 of 1993, dated 13. 1994, the Government decided to amend the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service. Accordingly, based on the proposals of the Director of Agriculture, dated 13. 1995, the Government have decided to issue comprehensive amendments and incorporate suitable provisions to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, so as to achieve the object of giving promotion to all the Field Demonstration Officers, by merging both the categories of the Field Demonstration Officer of Grade I and II in Category 4 of the Service. The Director of Agriculture, Madras has sent proposals for incorporation of a proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service to protect the interests of the Laboratory Assistant to the extent, that their claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers in the normal vacancies in the ratio of 10:1 (Field Demonstration Officers and Laboratory Assistants) to continue to be protected and to make a new proviso applicable exclusively for the posts of Field Demonstration Officers, which would be upgraded as per the orders in Paragraph 5 of G.O. Ms. No. 457, Agriculture (AA%) Department, dated 27. 1993. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government have made the following amendments to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, with effect from 20.4.1993 and it reads as follows: “In the said rules, in rule 2 in the Table, against “Category-3” in column (1) and the post “Assistant Agricultural Officers” in column (2) for the entries in column (3), the following entries shall be substituted namely: “By promotion from among the holders of the post of Field Demonstration Officers in category 4 or by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the post of Laboratory Assistant in category 4 in Class 1 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service. Provided that the ratio for appointment from among the holders of the posts of Field Demonstration Officer and Laboratory Assistant shll be 10:1. Provided further that if no Laboratory Assistant is available for appointment to the post reserved for them, the said post shall be filled up from among the holders of the post of Field Demonstration Officer: Provided also that all the posts of Field Demonstration Officers existing as on 27. 1993 shall be upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Offices in a phased manner and the holders of the post of Field Demonstration Officers from the said date shall alone be promoted in upgraded post of Assistant Agricultural Officer, as and when the Field Demonstration Officer qualify for the said posts of Assistant Agricultural Officers: Provided also that the ratio of 10:1 shall not apply when promotion is take from among the holders of the post of Field Demonstration Officers to the upgraded post of Assistant Agricultural Officers”. 5. By virtue of the amendment to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, the Government have decided to fill up the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers, by promotion, from the holders of the post of Field Demonstration Officers in category-4 or by recruitment by transfer, from among the holders of the post of Laboratory Assistant in Category-4 in Class I of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service, maintaining a rate of 10:1. By the said amendment to the rules, the Government have totally dispensed with filling up of the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer, by direct recruitment. The said decision of the Government is attacked by the Agricultural Diploma Holders Association (Unemployed) rep., by its Secretary, on the ground that the chances of appointment of the members of the Association is permanently lost and that the petitioner are deprived of their right to be selected for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer is taken away by the Government arbitrarily. The petitioner has further contended that there is no rationale in amending the Rules, depriving the chances of the unemployed, who possess Diploma in Agriculture. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. V.Sadanandam and Others (1989) Supp. The petitioner has further contended that there is no rationale in amending the Rules, depriving the chances of the unemployed, who possess Diploma in Agriculture. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. V.Sadanandam and Others (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 574, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 17, held as follows: “The mode of recruitment and the category from which recruitment to a service should be made are matters within the executive domain of the executive. It is not for the judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the executive decision in these matters. When the rules provide for transfer on promotion from other local categories or zones and such transfers are not assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or “discrimination, the policy of transfer adopted by the Government is not subject to judicial review.” 8. Method of recruitment, source, category, qualification, number of years of experience, fixing of ratio for a particular post is purely the executive domain and Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the same. The relief sought for by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. In view of the legal pronouncement, the decision of the Government in amending the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, whereby, the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer was made purely as a promotional post from among Field Demonstration Officers and Laboratory Assistants in the ratio of 10:1, cannot be adjudicated in this Court. The decision not to fill up the posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer by direct recruitment method and to fill up the posts from among the above said categories, cannot be said to be arbitrary. The petitioner, being an Association of unemployed Diploma holders in Agriculture, has no statutory or legal right to demand or insist the government that the source of recruitment to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer should be in the manner as suggested by them. 9. In view of the above, the prayer in the writ petition is totally misconceived. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.