S HARIRAJULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has initially filed O.A.No.8649/97 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the respondent dated 18.10.1996. THE petitioner was appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II in the year 1963 and subsequently he was promoted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I with effect from 31.12.1983. In the year 1984, the Government has, in G.O.Ms.No.585 RD&LA dated 12.4.1984, introduced a single service rules in the Rural Development Department wherein the post of Rural Welfare Officer was merged with Ministerial service. Consequently, even the incumbents of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I and II have to pass the test which were originally prescribed for ministerial service. Originally, by the G.O.Ms.No.325 RD & LA dated 26.04.1985, a period of 3 years time was given for acquiring the above said test qualification. Subsequently, the time has been extended for acquiring the test qualification for the incumbents for the post of Rural Welfare Officer cadre upto 11.05.1990. A number of Original Applications have been filed challenging the extension of time and finally, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, by order dated 04.05.1994, extended the time for passing the above test upto 04.05.1994, i.e., the date on which the Hon"ble Supreme Court order has been passed. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his name has been included in the panel drawn for promotion to the post of Extension Officer for the year 1994, since the petitioner had passed the relevant test only in November 1993. But, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, basing on the order passed in C.A.No.61-93/1994 dated 04.05.1994, his name should have been included in the panel drawn for the year 1992. Hence, as against the non-inclusion of his name in the panel of 1992, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. Since no orders have been passed, he has filed the above Original Application for the issue of a direction, directing the respondent to include his name in the Presumptive Panel of Extension Officer for the year 1992. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on the following portion of the order passed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.61-93/1994 dated 04.05.1984:

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner had passed the test in November 1993, as per the said order, he should be treated similarly along with other Rural Welfare staffs who had passed the test prior to 11.05.1990 and if it is so, his name would have been included in the Panel of 1992. But, taking into account the date of passing the Department test i.e., November 1993, the petitioner's name has been included in the Panel of Extension Officer in the year 1994. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since the Panel is only a Presumptive Panel and not a regular Panel and the Panel was drawn only in the year 1996, though it is for the year 1992-1993 and 1994, on the date of drawal of the Panel, he was qualified. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, his name should have been included in the Panel for the year 1992 and not 1994.