TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL DIPLOMA HOLDERS ASSOCIATION UNEMPLOYED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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. 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.