Judgment :- 1. These three writ petitions more or less arise on the same issue, namely, the petitioners in all the three writ petitions wanted for a direction to the first respondent / State Government to amend the Special Rules in respect of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service or relaxing the requirement of Diploma in Agriculture as well as the maximum age required for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers in favour of the petitioners. 2. In the first writ petition, W.P.No.14114 of 2008, there are thirty-three writ petitioners led by one P. Pachamuthu, in the second writ petition, W.P.No.14848 of 2008, there are fourteen writ petitioners led by A. Palraj and likewise, in the third writ petition, W.P.No.17553 of 2008, there are four writ petitioners led by one C. Mailusamy. 3. W.P.No.14114 of 2008 had came up on 17.06.2008 and the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice. Subsequently, as no reply was filed by the official respondents, on 26.06.2008, an order of status-quo was directed to be maintained and on 24.07.2008, the status quo order was directed to be continued until further orders. Aggrieved by the grant of the order of status quo, the respondents / State has filed a vacate stay application in M.P. No.2 of 2009 together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 16.04.2009. 4. Even as that matter was pending, the second writ petition, W.P. No.14848 of 2008 came to be filed and in that writ petition, which has clubbed with the earlier writ petition, an order of status-quo was granted on 26.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, a vacate stay petition was filed in M.P. No.2 of 2009 by the respondents / State along with the counter affidavit dated 16.04.2009. The petitioners had requested for interim direction in M.P. No.1 of 2009 directing not to fill up the fourteen posts of Assistant Agricultural Officers and no orders were passed in that Miscellaneous Petition. 5. Subsequently the third writ petition, W.P. No.17553 of 2008, came up on 24.07.2008 and the same was admitted and it was directed to be posted along with the other connected writ petitions. Pending the writ petition, on 24.07.2008, in M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2008, a direction was issued to keep one post vacant in respect of each of the petitioners and an order of status-quo was granted until further orders. Pending the writ petition, on 24.07.2008, in M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2008, a direction was issued to keep one post vacant in respect of each of the petitioners and an order of status-quo was granted until further orders. Aggrieved by the two orders, the respondents / Government filed two vacate stay applications in M.P. Nos.2 and 3 of 2009. 6. In view of the inter-connectivity among the three petitions, they were grouped together and a common order is being passed. 7. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel, for Ms. S.J. Kala, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in all the above writ petitions and Mr. M. Dig Vijay Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. The contentions of the petitioners are as follows:-The petitioners are yet to enter into the Government Service. According to them, some of them have completed degree course and for the purpose of entering as Field Demonstration Officers in the Department of Agriculture, the qualification required was one year certificate course in the Government Agricultural Training Schools. There were twelve such Government Agricultural Training Schools all over Tamil Nadu. The petitioners underwent the Training in one such schools. The intention of granting such training was to absorb them in Government employment and a promise was also made by the Ministry of Agriculture while replying to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on the Agriculture Object on 21.04.1992 and it was claimed that the Field Demonstration Officers will be upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers in a phased manner. In the meanwhile, during the year 1992, all the Government Agricultural Training Schools were closed by G.O.Ms.No.457, Agriculture Department, dated 20.08.1993 and the speech made by the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture was referred to in the said Government Order. It was stated therein that there were 187 vacant posts of Assistant Agricultural Officers, which are to be filled up by promotion to the post of Field Demonstration Officers / Laboratory Assistant on 10 : 1 basis with immediate effect well as by relaxing the necessary qualification and it was further stated therein that 323 qualified Grade I Field Demonstration Officers were to be upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers during the year 1993 and an additional 323 Field Demonstration Officers were to be upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers during the year 1994. The ban order was also issued for filling up the post of Field Demonstration Officers. Therefore, the petitioners even though underwent one year Training, they were not appointed as Field Demonstration Officers. 9. The petitioners' claim is that they were all from rural areas with poor background and they were under the impression that after going through the one year certificate course, they will give entry into the Department of Agriculture, as there was no post of Field Demonstration Officers recruited, despite they were certificate holders from the Government Agricultural Schools, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.26017 of 1993 challenging to set-aside the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.457, Agriculture, dated 28.07.1993. The said writ petition came to be dismissed with an observation that the State should endeavor its best to come to the rescue of the petitioners by providing some accommodation in the Agricultural Department thereby providing solace to the family of the petitioners. If that is so, necessary relaxation can be made in respect of the qualification, age, etc., Therefore, it was contended that since the number of Field Demonstration Officers after giving training of 21 days were promoted as Assistant Agricultural Officers, certified holders from Agricultural Government Training Schools, who actually held the post of Field Demonstration Officers, who have upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers with its 21 days special training as a requisite for qualification and the Government had announced subsequently the recruitment to the posts of 1707 Assistant Agricultural Officers through Employment Exchange. The petitioners contended that in those schools the petitioners should be fit in and if they are not taken as a clause by themselves, they will not get any employment in future. Therefore, it is in this context, they have sought for a direction to amend the Special Rules by amending the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service Rules or in the alternative sought for relaxing the requirement of Diploma in Agriculture as well as the maximum age in respect of the petitioners for being appointed to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers. 10. 10. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents / State it was contended that the State Government took a police decision in issuing G.O.Ms.No.457, Agriculture Department, dated 28.07.1993, and subsequent to the said Government Order, there cannot be any recruitment for the post of Field Demonstration Officers and the Agricultural Training Schools were also closed due to the said decision. It was only to persons who were already holding the post, the special concession was made for their further being posted as Assistant Agricultural Officers, who have trained for twenty-one days in the said schools. This policy decision of the State Government to prescribe a higher qualification was made considering the need for taking the technological development in agriculture to the farmers. Subsequently, there was a ban of recruitment during the year 2001 and the ban was lifted only during 2006. 11. The contention of the petitioners that the Field Demonstration Officers to be upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officers after twenty-one days of special training cannot be accepted, as it is only given to the Field Demonstration Officers, who were working in the agricultural department for more than ten to twenty years. 12. It was pointed out that the recruitment of new Assistant Agricultural Officers is based upon the existing service rules, which requires higher qualification for holding the post and the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange before the petitioners' claim that in order to recruit them, necessary amendment should be made or in the alternative relaxation to be given cannot be accepted. 13. Though Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners contended that in an earlier order, this Court made a recommendation to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically and that should have some bearing on the State and the State should have made appropriate arrangements in making either the changes or providing solace to the petitioners. 14. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners contended that in an earlier order, this Court made a recommendation to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically and that should have some bearing on the State and the State should have made appropriate arrangements in making either the changes or providing solace to the petitioners. 14. In as much as the petitioners original claim was dismissed by this Court and it was only an observation, which the State Government has now come forward to state that there is no scope for taking the petitioners who are not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers for which the qualification has been prescribed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel cannot be found accepted as the petitioners are yet to enter into any Government service. Even before entering into the Government Service, the question of either amending the rules at their instance or relaxing the rules in their favour cannot be granted that too by a direction in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the fact that though the petitioners have undergone one year training in the Agricultural Training Schools, but there is no guarantee that they will be employed as Field Demonstration Officers. In fact, the Government Order itself abolished the post of Field Demonstration Officers and therefore there is no post in which the petitioners can be accommodated in the Department especially when the post for which they were trained does not exists. 15. The other contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that earlier Field Demonstration Officers were given 21 days training and were subsequently absorbed as Assistant Agricultural Officers vide G.O.Ms.No.457, dated 28.07.1993, is concerned, it is justified in the counter affidavit by stating that those Field Demonstration Officers have been working from 10 to 20 years and once the post is abolished, they will have to be accommodated elsewhere and therefore, the special training was given to them for accommodating to the higher post as a one time measure only and subsequently, the post have to be filled up only in terms of the relevant recruitment rules applicable to the service. This stand taken by the respondents cannot be found fault with. This stand taken by the respondents cannot be found fault with. Hence in the absence of any legal enforceable right on the part of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case. 16. Accordingly, all the above three writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.