Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1349 (JHR)

Kalipada Paul v. State Of Jharkhand

2013-12-12

AMITAV K.GUPTA, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, CJ. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of (2) of Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Jansewak (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules (Amendment), 2012 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it seeks to discriminate in the matter of promotion to the post of Block Agriculture Officer (BAO) vis-à-vis Jan Sewaks who have obtained full training with that of Jan Sewaks who could not obtain full training and also seeking alternative relief in the nature of declaration that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of BAO by treating him as fully trained Jan Sewak in terms of notification contained in memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012. 2. The erstwhile State of Bihar enacted Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) Rules, 1987 providing therein the mode and manner for appointment of Jan Sewaks. Training was essential for recruitment of Jan Sewaks and as per Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) Rules, 1987, the candidates selected till 31.3.1990 having educational qualification of Matric were required to undergo one year training and during their service tenure, they were required to undergo further training of one year and candidates selected after 31.3.1990 having qualification of Matric were required to undergo full training of two years and thereafter they were appointed on the post of Jan Sewak and the candidates having Graduate degree in Agriculture or higher degree were required to undergo three months training and thereafter they were required to appear in a limited written examination and if they failed to pass the said written examination, they were required to undergo normal training, i.e for one or two year as the case may be. 3. The State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the matter of promotion of Jan Sewaks could not be considered in early phase because there was no clear-cut promotional provision for Jan Sewaks. Several representations were received by the Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department for consideration of the promotional matter of Jan Sewaks/Village Level Workers in general (non-Agriculture Graduate, Jan Sewaks). Considering the representations, the Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department formulated recruitment rules named as Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) Rules, 2011 issued by the notification no.1411 dated 25.5.2011. Several representations were received by the Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department for consideration of the promotional matter of Jan Sewaks/Village Level Workers in general (non-Agriculture Graduate, Jan Sewaks). Considering the representations, the Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department formulated recruitment rules named as Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) Rules, 2011 issued by the notification no.1411 dated 25.5.2011. The said rule was reviewed and the promotional provision was included in para 12.2 with the said Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) Rules, 2012, vide notification no.3249 dated 5.11.2012, named as Jan Sewak (Recruitment & Service Condition) (Amendment) Rules, 2012. As per the amendment, promotional avenues were opened for both types of Jan Sewaks either Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduate working under the Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department and 50% vacancy is to be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% from the Jan Sewak cadre by promotion, i.e 25% post to be filled up by fully and successful trained non-Agriculture Graduates and another 25% from Agriculture Graduates with full training working as Jan Sewaks. 4. Averments in the Writ Petition The petitioner was selected prior to 31.3.1990 and he was made to undergo training for one year and thereafter he was appointed, vide memo no. 1774 dated 20.11.1990, on the post of Jan Sewak. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Jan Sewak. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with similarly situated persons, on several occasions, represented before the State of Jharkhand to impart further training of one year and inspite of their representation, one year training was not imparted to the petitioner and other similarly situated Jan Sewaks. Since the petitioner and similarly situated persons were continuously working as Jan Sewaks and were getting all practical experience during the course of their normal employment, the petitioner and other similarly persons were not required to undergo further training of one year. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent seeks to compare the petitioner with those Jan Sewaks who have been appointed after completing two year training as the said Jan Sewaks were selected for appointment only after 31.3.1990 and they were appointed after completion of two year training. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent seeks to compare the petitioner with those Jan Sewaks who have been appointed after completing two year training as the said Jan Sewaks were selected for appointment only after 31.3.1990 and they were appointed after completion of two year training. Grievance of the petitioner is that while prescribing the eligibility criteria for promotion, Rule 12.2.1 prescribes that only such Jan Sewaks who have obtained full training would be entitled to be considered for promotion to BAO and rule 12.2.1 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, inspite of their representation, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks were not imparted training and when they were integrated into a common cadre of Jan Sewaks, they could not be discriminated on the ground that the petitioner and similarly situated persons, who were appointed prior to 31.3.1990, have not undergone full training. On the basis of show cause filed by the respondents in Contempt Petition being Cont.(C) Case No.514/2012, where the 2nd respondent, Director, Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department, filed show cause stating that the petitioner and other similarly situated Jan Sewaks, who were recruited prior to 31.3.1990, had undergone only one year training, were not required to undergo further training and shall be deemed to be fully trained. On that basis the petitioner seeks for alternative relief that they should be considered as fully trained Jan Sewaks and should be considered for promotion to the post of BAO. 5. Averments In the Counter-Affidavit Refuting the contention of the petitioner, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit contending that under rule 12.2 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, promotional avenues were opened for both types of Jan Sewaks either Agriculture Graduates or Non-Agriculture Graduates working under the Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department. For promotion to the post of BAO, full training (completion of two year training) was considered necessary. The petitioner was appointed under the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, and as per the said Rules, 1987, the petitioner was to complete remaining part of the one year training during service tenure which is an essential requirement for Non-Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks, who have not completed their full training. The petitioner was appointed under the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, and as per the said Rules, 1987, the petitioner was to complete remaining part of the one year training during service tenure which is an essential requirement for Non-Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks, who have not completed their full training. According to the respondents, the function of the post of BAO and above are technical in nature and it will not be appropriate to consider the promotional matter without imparting full training (after completion of which, Diploma in Agriculture Certificate is issued to successful Jan Sewaks; on the basis of marks obtained in the examination, gradation list is prepared) and in view of the technicalities attached with the agricultural activities, the completion of the required training programme is necessary for those who have not completed the training programme. According to the respondents, the Department will continue imparting training for partially trained Jan Sewaks and Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks and only on completion of full training, they will be considered for promotion and there is no discrimination. The petitioner was selected prior to 31.3.1990 and was appointed under the Recruitment Rules of 1987 and completing training of two years as per provisions in the Recruitment Rules of 1987 is necessary and discharging duties is one thing and to complete the condition as mentioned in the Recruitment Rule is another thing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the representation of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, further one year training was not imparted to them and hence, writ petition being W.P(S) No.39/2012 was filed and the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 13.1.2012, Annexure – 8, directing the respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider the grievance of the Jan Sewaks. The contention of the petitioner is that since the said direction was not complied with, contempt case being Cont.(C)Case No.514/2012 was filed and the Director, Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department, filed show cause alongwith annexure i.e. the order contained in memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012,wherein it was stated that the petitioner and other similarly situated Jan Sewaks were not required to undergo further training and they shall be deemed to be fully trained. Based on the show cause filed in the said contempt case, the petitioner seeks for alternative relief that in terms of notification no.1653 dated 29.5.2012 issued by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner should be considered as fully trained Jan Sewak and should be considered in the matter of promotion to the post of BAO. 7. Learned AAG appearing along with Ms. C.C. Sinha for the respondent-State submitted that there is no discrimination, since the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, provides for promotional avenue to all the Jan Sewaks whether Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduate fully trained. The learned AAG submitted that the Department will conduct training programme for partially trained Jan Sewaks and only on completion of training, they will be considered for their promotion. Learned AAG further submitted that since the Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, provides for promotional avenues for all the fully trained Jan Sewaks, be it Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduate, the term, “fully trained” incorporated in the said Rule is neither arbitrary, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution Of India. Learned AAG further submitted that there is no rule for considering the untrained or partly trained or semi-trained Jan Sewaks for promotion and therefore, there is no arbitrariness in the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, and the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued. 8. The intervening petitioners in I.A No.8156/2013 were selected prior to 31.3.1990 and accordingly made to undergo one year training and thereafter appointed on the post of Jan Sewak and they were required to undergo further training of one year during their service tenure. The petitioners in I.A No.8156/2013 are similarly situated as that of the petitioner in the writ petition. We have heard Ms. Ritu Kumar, appearing for the petitioners in I.A No.8156/2013. Learned counsel, Ms. Ritu Kumar, reiterated the same submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner. 9. We have considered rival contentions and perused the impugned Rules and also the materials on record. The following points arise for determination in this writ petition:- (I) Whether rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, is arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India? 9. We have considered rival contentions and perused the impugned Rules and also the materials on record. The following points arise for determination in this writ petition:- (I) Whether rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, is arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India? (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the alternative prayer for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of BAO by treating him as fully trained Jan Sewak in terms of the amended Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012? 10. The erstwhile State of Bihar enacted the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987. Rule 9(IV) to 9(VII) of the said Rule provide for three separate criteria for training and appointment of Jan Sewaks and they read as follows:- “9.(IV) (a) Training period organized till 31.03.90 shall be for one year. Training session after 1.4.90 shall be of two years. (b) On completion of training, passing of prescribed test by the Government from time to time for a trainee is mandatory; Provided that Graduates in Agriculture Science or a candidate possessing higher degree shall have a training period of 3 months with a condition that such candidate shall pass the training examination after completion of three months training in the training centre, otherwise they have to complete the training as per normal training. Provided further that candidate selected till 31.3.90, who are required to undergo one year training will have to undergo one year further training and the said training shall be organized during their service tenure as and when facility for the same is available on the training centre. (V) Candidates who have passed the prescribed test in terms of clause (ii) on the basis of their work performance, a list shall be prepared which shall be known as “State List”. This list shall be prepared by the Director, Agriculture. (VI) List of successful candidates of district in terms of their merit shall also be prepared which shall be known as District List. The District List shall also be prepared by the Director, Agriculture. (VII) From amongst the candidates named in the District List, the Collector shall make appointment of Jansevaks/Village Level Worker.” Every person selected on the post of Jan Sewak shall be deemed to be appointed on probation. The District List shall also be prepared by the Director, Agriculture. (VII) From amongst the candidates named in the District List, the Collector shall make appointment of Jansevaks/Village Level Worker.” Every person selected on the post of Jan Sewak shall be deemed to be appointed on probation. Every Jan Sewak shall work as probationer for period of two years provided that the Deputy Collector, if deems necessary, may extend the period of probation for a further period of maximum one year in appropriate case. 11. In the year 2012, by enactment of the rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules (Amendment), 2012, promotional avenue was created for Jan Sewaks and it was provided that the Jan Sewaks shall get promotion to the post of BAO. Rule 12.2.1 reads as under:- “12.2 Promotion of Jan Sewak shall be done as per the following tabulated chart:- 12.2.1 Sl. Name of Basic Grade/promoted post Pay Scale Procedure for appointment/promotion Classification of post/category 1. X X X X 2. Block Agriculture Officer Rs.9300-34800/-Grade Pay Rs.4200/- a) 50% of total vacancy by direct recruitment b) 50% of total vacancy from the Basic grade post of Jansevak on the basis of promotion:- (i) 50% of total promotional post shall be filled up under Jansevak Recruitment Rules, 1958, 1987 and 2011 by the Non-agriculture graduates Jansevaks having requisite qualification and full training. (ii) 50% of total promotional post shall be filled up under Jansevak Recruitment Rules, 1958, 1987 and 2011, by the Agriculture Graduate Jansevaks having requisite qualification and full training. Class -III 12. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks, who were recruited prior to 31.3.1990, had undergone one year training and thereafter appointed as Jan Sewaks and they were working as Jan Sewaks for several years. It was further submitted that even though the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987 provided three separate criteria for training and appointment of Jan Sewaks and once the Jan Sewaks, be it Graduate in Agriculture or other Graduates or other persons, completed the requisite training and appointed as Jan Sewaks were integrated into one cadre and there could not be any discrimination amongst the common cadre of Jan Sewaks, who are integrated into one cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the qualification possessed by the Agriculture Graduates or with higher qualification, they were to undergo training for a period of three months with the condition that the candidate has to pass such training examination after completion of three months training in the Training Centre and if those candidates failed in the written examination, they had to complete the training as per normal training. It was further contended that on completion of one year training, when the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were appointed as Jan Sewaks, they are on par with the Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduate, who had training for a lesser period of three months and therefore, the petitioner and similarly placed persons, who are incorporated into one cadre, cannot be denied promotion to the post of BAO on the ground that the petitioner and similarly situated persons have not undergone further training of one year during their service tenure. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012, providing for promotion of the Non-Agriculture Graduates, having requisite qualification of full training is arbitrary and ultra vires the Article14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The main functions of the Block Agriculture Officer are to work for overall growth of agriculture in the block and (i) to make farmers acquainted with all Central and State Schemes regarding agriculture; (ii) to make farmers educated and upto date regarding the crops/products (iii) to make farmers educated as to suitability of the crops/products, soil quality and climatic conditions etc.; (iv) to give all inputs to the farmers regarding agricultural operations and (v) to make farmers educated and upto date with regard to loan and other facilities available to them. Besides the above agricultural works, Block Agriculture Officers are also to work under the Block Development Officer and to assist him in all Governmental functions like election, preparation of different cards like voter I.D, Aadhar card etc. and in all other administrative activities in the Block. 14. Besides the above agricultural works, Block Agriculture Officers are also to work under the Block Development Officer and to assist him in all Governmental functions like election, preparation of different cards like voter I.D, Aadhar card etc. and in all other administrative activities in the Block. 14. Having regard to the nature of functions performed by the BAO, BAO needs technical knowledge regarding agriculture and having regard to the nature of responsibilities of BAO, the impugned rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012, stipulates the qualification of Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks with full training or Non-Agriculture Graduate with full training for promotion as BAO. 15. Partly trained (having only one year training) or untrained Jan Sewaks cannot be equated with full trained (having completed full training or completed two years, Four Semesters, of training) Jan Sewaks. On completion of full training Diploma in Agriculture certificate is issued to Jan Sewaks and gradation list is prepared which is the basis of seniority. Mere date of joining in service, without full training, cannot be the basis of seniority. 16. The petitioner was appointed under the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987. and is bound to fulfill the service conditions as stipulated in that Rule. In para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has stated that one year further training is essential as per the Recruitment Rule of 1987 for Non-Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks, who have not completed their full training. 17. As pointed out earlier, the post of BAO and above are technical in nature, the State of Jharkhand framed the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 prescribing that only those with full training shall be considered for promotion as BAO. After completion of full training, Diploma in Agriculture is issued to successful Jan Sewaks and on the basis of marks obtained in the Examination, the gradation list is prepared as per the Rule. In fact, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks requested for providing one year further training according to the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987. Having regard to the technical nature of duties and responsibilities of BAO, the Rule stipulating full training for being considered for promotion cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 18. In fact, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks requested for providing one year further training according to the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987. Having regard to the technical nature of duties and responsibilities of BAO, the Rule stipulating full training for being considered for promotion cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 18. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents on 24.9.2013, it is stated that all Service Rules have different educational criteria for appointment of Jan Sewaks but at the same time, training has been an essential condition in each Service Rules for preparing their gradation list on the basis of which promotional matters are considered. According to the respondents, training/module related to the agricultural fields and for promotion, training is essential because 1st stage of promotion is BAO whose normal minimum educational qualification is B.Sc. (Agriculture). Now since the Department has opened promotional avenue to all the Jan Sewaks having graduation in Agriculture and also Non-graduation in Agriculture and the working nature of BAO needs technical knowledge regarding the agricultural fields and therefore, training is necessary. Hence rule 12.2.1 of Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions)(Amendment) Rules, 2012, prescribed full training for being considered for promotion and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit in para 39, it is pointed out that promotion issued by the State of Bihar (Agriculture Department) where the Jan Sewaks who were trained for only one year were not considered for promotion to the post of BAO. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were appointed prior to 31.3.1990 and they have been working as Jan Sewaks for several years and gained the requisite experience in the agricultural field and therefore, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks must be deemed to be fully trained and there is no necessity to undergo any further training. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks were allowed to work for many years, there is no necessity for further training and therefore, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks should be considered for promotion as BAO. 20. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Earlier there was no promotional avenue for Non-Agriculture Graduates (either one year trained or two years trained); hence training was not imparted. 20. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Earlier there was no promotional avenue for Non-Agriculture Graduates (either one year trained or two years trained); hence training was not imparted. The State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000 and thereafter the Rule for promotion has been framed and the said Rules provides training period for Jan Sewaks either Agriculture Graduate or Non-Agriculture Graduates. Even the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, prescribed one year training and further training for one year during the service tenure. Discharging duties is one thing and having training is entirely different thing, which is the requisite for being considered for promotion. 21. Both in the counter affidavit and in the supplementary counter-affidavit, the respondents clearly stated that one year in service training for Jan Sewaks will be imparted/conducted by the Director, Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department and after getting details of one year full training (taken from the Deputy Commissioners concerned and Agriculture Department, Bihar), if necessary, after completing the procedure, respondents themselves are taking steps to impart training to those semi-trained Jan Sewaks. 22. As per the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, candidates selected till 31.3.1990 having educational qualification of Matric were required to undergo one year training and after training such candidates were appointed on the post of Jan Sewaks and during their service tenure, they were required to undergo further training of one year and when the petitioner similarly situated persons having been appointed as per Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, which stipulates further training of one year during their service tenure, it is not open to the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks to challenge the rule 12.2.1. of Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions)(Amendment) Rules, 2012, as arbitary and discriminatory. 23. The petitioners also placed reliance upon a speaking order of the Director of Agriculture in memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012. Referring to the order passed in W.P(S) No. 39/2012 dated 13.1.2012, the Director, Agriculture, stated as under:- “In the light of aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, vide this office letter no.1451 dated 8.5.2012, training to be given to Jansewaks under the Notification issued by Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide Memo No.1411 dated 25.5.2011, was considered wherein Jansewaks were required to undergo only six months training. The said information was given to Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka, and a copy of the notification was also forwarded to Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, Govt. Pleader No.6,for informing the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, about the said notification. Therefore, in terms of Departmental Notification No.1411 dated 8.5.2011 (Jansewak Rules), those Jansewaks who have obtained training for a period of one year or more, are not required to undergo any further training.” 24. The petitioner and intervener-petitioners in I.A No.8156/2013, who are similarly situated Jan Sewaks, have sought for alternative prayer for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to promotion on the post of BAO by treating them eligible for promotion. In this regard, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks mainly placed reliance upon the above memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012 and the show cause filed in Cont.(C) Case No.514/2012. Interveners in W.P(S) NO.39/2012 sought for a direction to the respondents to send them for one year training immediately as envisaged in the service Rules. W.P(S) NO.39/2012 was disposed of by the order dated 13.1.2012 with direction to the respondent no2, Director, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, to dispose of the representation of the interveners within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 25. Alleging that the said order was not complied with, the interveners filed Cont. (C) Case No.514/12 for non-compliance of the order dated 13.1.2012. Show cause was filed on behalf of the Director, Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department, stating that as per the new notification issued by the Department of Agriculture & Sugarcane Development Department, vide memo no.1411 dated 25.5.2011, the Jan Sewaks are required to undergo six months training and therefore, the petitioners are not required to be sent for further training. Show cause filed in contempt petition reads as under:- “..the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by stating that as per new notification issued by the Department of Agriculture and sugarcane development, State of Jharkhand issued vide memo no. 1411 dated 25-05-11 the jansewaks are only required to undergo six months of training. It further says that those jansewaks who have already undergone one year of training are not required to be sent for any training.” 26. 1411 dated 25-05-11 the jansewaks are only required to undergo six months of training. It further says that those jansewaks who have already undergone one year of training are not required to be sent for any training.” 26. Much reliance is placed on the memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012 of the Director, Agriculture and the show cause filed in contempt petition to contend that the petitioner and interveners are not required to undergo further training and therefore, the case of the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks are to be considered for promotion. 27. According to the respondents, the speaking order in memo no.1653 dated 29.5.2012 was issued by the Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand, in the light and context of Rules issued by notification no.1411 dated 25.5.2011 and the conditions regarding the educational qualification, training and other service conditions as are applicable to those Jan Sewaks, who were appointed under the provisions of notification no.1411 dated 25.5.2011 and not for those, like the petitioner and interveners who were appointed in 1987 before the existence of the 2011 Notification. According to the respondents, at the time of issuance of the said speaking order dated 29.5.2012, as the Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2012 was not in existence, the notification no.3249 dated 5.11.2012 was also not in existence through which the promotional provisions of general Jan Sewaks (Non-Agriculture Graduate Jan Sewaks) have been incorporated. 28. The contention of the respondents is that Jan Sewaks including petitioners were appointed under the Recruitment Rules of 1987 and they are governed by the Rule of 1987. Further contention of the respondents is that the selection process as per the recruitment rule 2011 is entirely different and therefore, the conditions of Rule 2011 will not be applicable to the Jan Sewaks appointed under Rule 1987 in terms of educational qualification, selection process and training module/period. According to the respondents, the petitioner and interveners were appointed under the Rules of 1987 and they are to be governed by the Rule 1987. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the show cause in the contempt petition has been filed in the context of the requisite training for Jan Sewaks recruited in 2011. 29. We are of the view that the show cause in Cont. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the show cause in the contempt petition has been filed in the context of the requisite training for Jan Sewaks recruited in 2011. 29. We are of the view that the show cause in Cont. (C) Case No.514/12 has been filed though in the context of the requisite training for Jan Sewaks recruited in 2011, the fact remains that the show cause has been filed in the contempt petition where interveners were seeking for a direction for further training. Petitioner and interveners who were recruited as per the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, the petitioner and similarly situated Jan Sewaks are to undergo one year training plus one year further training during their service tenure. In the show cause filed in the contempt petition on 2.7.2012, the respondents must have specifically stated that the petitioner/inteveners are to undergo further one year training. But it was not stated so. But it was generally stated, the Jan Sewaks who have already undergone one year training are not required to be sent for any further training. 30. Having regard to the submission made in the show cause filed by the respondents that the petitioner and other similarly situated Jan Sewaks, who have already undergone one year training, are not required to be sent for any training, we direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner and interveners for promotion by including them in the gradation list and to consider them for promotion as per rule 12.2.1 of the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions)(Amendment) Rules, 2012, on par with others. After so considering them for promotion, if any, further training is required essential, the respondents shall send the petitioner and interveners for further training. 31. In the result, it is held that:- (A) the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment)Rules, 2012 is not discriminatory or arbitrary and the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought in prayer (a). 31. In the result, it is held that:- (A) the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment)Rules, 2012 is not discriminatory or arbitrary and the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought in prayer (a). (B) respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to include the petitioner and similarly situated interveners, who were recruited as per the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 1987, prior to 31.3.1990, in the gradation list and to consider them for promotion to the post of Block Agriculture Officer on par with others as per the Jan Sewaks (Recruitment & Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 And (C) after considering the petitioner and intervener-petitioners, Jan Sewaks, for promotion as Block Agriculture Officer, if any further training is required, the same may be imparted to them at an early date subject to the availability of the training facility.