Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 195 (RAJ)

P. K. Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-22

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed. 2. It was the case of the appellant that he had qualified M.Sc in Botany and was appointed as Agriculture Research Officer (Botany) on the recommendations of Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Appellant, on promotion, joined as Deputy Director Agriculture (Botany) on 3.4.1997. Appellant belonged to Research Section of Rajasthan Agriculture Service. Appellant, after his appointment, was posted in Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency on deputation. Appellant was discharging his duties but had not been considered for the post of Joint Director (Botany) since 9.10.2009. Respondents were preferring persons having qualification in Agronomy and were deliberately discriminating officers who had qualified Botany. There was no post of Additional Director (Botany) in the Department of Agriculture. The existing post of Joint Director (Botany) had not been upgraded to Additional Director (Botany). Botany and Agronomy were two distinct and separate branches. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In-fact, appellant was the only qualified person to be promoted as Director, whereas, the appellant had not been promoted as a Director. As per Rule 21 of The Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency Rules, 1976, the Governing Board of Rajasthan shall have the power to frame regulations, not inconsistent with these Rules and to alter, amend and repeal them from time to time for the administration and management of the affairs of the Agency and for carrying out its objectives except in technical matters for which the approval of the Central Seed Certification Board was required. As per resolution of the Board dated 6.4.1996, the post of Director Rajasthan Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency was to be preferably filled by persons having qualification in Botany Section and in the absence of the persons having the said qualification, a person from Agronomy Section could be appointed. Respondents had upgraded the post of Director Rajasthan Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency equivalent to Additional Director in Agriculture Department but had not upgraded the existing post of Joint Director (Botany) in the Department with a view to deprive the persons having qualification of Botany. Respondents had upgraded the post of Director Rajasthan Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency equivalent to Additional Director in Agriculture Department but had not upgraded the existing post of Joint Director (Botany) in the Department with a view to deprive the persons having qualification of Botany. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India And Others Vs. P.C. Misra 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 39, decided on September 2, 1993, wherein, it has been held as under:- "The memorandum dated November 26, 1987 has to be read along with sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and if thus read it would cover cases of officers who were eligible on January 1, 1986, the date of introduction of the Junior Administrative Grade. In other words officers who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility contained in the said memorandum on December 31, 1985 were to be appointed on the Junior Administrative Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 on the basis of the said memorandum and the officers who acquired the eligibility for such appointment after December 31, 1985 would be governed by the Rules in view of the note appended below sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and they could be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade in accordance with the provisions of Rule 31." 4. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sinha And Others Vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 1992 (1) S.C. 69, decided on 20.12.1991, wherein, it has been held as under:- "In our opinion, the selection for the purpose of appointment on the 85% upgraded posts of ATMs as LSGTMs had to be made from amongst persons who were working as ATMs on the August 17, 1983 and the said selection was to be made on the basis of their inter se seniority as Telegraphists." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have submitted that the question involved in the present case, at this stage, is rendered merely academic. Appellant has since retired. During the pendency of the petition, appellant was promoted to the post of Joint Director and hence the relief sought by the appellant in this regard was rendered infructuous. As per the regulations, no preference had been provided with regard to the candidates who had qualified Botany. Appellant has since retired. During the pendency of the petition, appellant was promoted to the post of Joint Director and hence the relief sought by the appellant in this regard was rendered infructuous. As per the regulations, no preference had been provided with regard to the candidates who had qualified Botany. 6. Order dated 21.08.2009 Exhibit-8 attached to the writ petition reads as under:- "Sanction is hereby granted for creation/upgradation of the following posts in Rajasthan State Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency:- S. No. Name of the Post No. of Post Details Rules for Mode of filling the posts 1. Director 1 Addl. Director in place of Jt. Director On deputation from Agri. Department 2. Chief Seed Certification Officer 1 Upgradation On deputation from Agriculture Department 3. Seed Certification Officer 4 New creation 100% by promotion of RSSOPCA Rules, 1980. 4. Dy. Seed Certification Officers 6 New creation 60% by promotion of RSSOPCA officers & 40% deputation from Agri. Deptt. 5. Asstt. Seed Certification Officers 20 New creation Deputation from Agri. Deptt./Direct recruitment Total 32 The level of upgradation and cadre of officers for the aforesaid posts would be as under:- S. No. Name of the post Cadre of Officer and level of upgradation 1 Director Jt. Director, Agri. Upgraded to the level of Addl. Director Agriculture 2 Chief Seed Cert. Officer Jt. Director Agri. (Botany) 3 Seed Certification Officer Dy. Director, Agri. 4 Dy. Seed Certification Officer Agri. Res. Officer 5 Asstt. Seed Certification Officer Asstt. Agri. Res. Officer This issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their I.D. No. 100903097 dated 7.8.09." 7. Before the issuance of the above order, post of Director could be filled up from Joint Directors who were having qualification of M.Sc (Botany)/Agriculture (Botany)/Plant Breeding/Agronomy/Genetics. After the passing of the order dated 21.08.2009, the post of Director has to be filled up by way of deputation from Additional Director Agriculture. As per the statement showing the qualification and method of recruitment provided in Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency Employees Service Regulations, 1980 shown by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, minimum qualification for selection for the post of Director is as under:- "Minimum II Class M.Sc (Botany/Agri Botany/with plant Breeding Agronomy/Horticulture (Vegetable)/Seed Technology with minimum 15 years experience of research and Farm Management Seed Production/or Experience of Development & Agriculture Extension Programme. 10 years experience of Officer cadre alongwith Experience of all Seed Production Programmes to prepare plants etc. with the knowledge of Administration and Technical Job." 8. Learned counsel for the respondents have further pointed out during the course of arguments that there is one post of Additional Director (Research Agriculture) and five posts of Additional Director (Extension Agriculture) and the said posts are filled up on the basis of seniority cum merit as per relevant rules. 9. So far as the appellant is concerned, during the pendency of the petition, he was promoted as Joint Director and relief sought by the appellant in this regard was rendered infructuous. 10. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the post of Director was liable to be filled up from the Officers who had qualified Botany as a subject was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any regulation providing for preference of an Officer who had qualified Botany for the promotion to the post of Director. The resolution relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant dated 6.4.1996 cannot over ride the regulations. 11. As per regulations, minimum qualification for selection to the post of Director was Second Class M.Sc Botany/Agriculture. The word Botany/Agriculture cannot be read as Botany or Agri-Botany as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the statement showing the qualification and method of recruitment as depicted in Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency Employees Service Regulations, 1980 shows that for the post of Seed Certification Officer minimum qualification was Second Class M.Sc Botany/Agri-Botany. Thus, where the qualification of Agri-Botany was required, it has been specifically spelled out in the statement. So far as the post of Director is concerned, it has not been mentioned specifically that the minimum qualification should be Agri-Botany, whereas, it is Botany/Agriculture. Hence, the prayer of the appellant to direct the respondents to give preference to the Officers having qualification of Botany and deny deputation on the post of Director to those who were working in other fields of Agriculture Department was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 12. The up-gradation of the post has been done vide order dated 21.08.2009 reproduced above by the Administration in its wisdom and learned Single Judge rightly held that order dated 21.08.2009 cannot be declared illegal. 13. 12. The up-gradation of the post has been done vide order dated 21.08.2009 reproduced above by the Administration in its wisdom and learned Single Judge rightly held that order dated 21.08.2009 cannot be declared illegal. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on difference facts. 14. No ground for interference by this court is made out. 15. Dismissed.