SURINDER PAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing Rule 9 along with Appendix 'B' of the Haryana Health Department Extension Education (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (for brevity, 'the Rules') on the ground that no provision for promotion for Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) has been provided, the post which the petitioner is substantively holding at present. A direction has also been sought to the respondents to amend Rule 5 while enhancing upper age limit to 50 years for appointment by way of promotion than 35 years for appointment to the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator. It has still further been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner from the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) to the post of Block Extension Educator, on which post the petitioner is stated to be performing his duties w.e.f. 31.5.1998, by amending Rules 5 and 9 in the aforementioned manner.

(2.) IT is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) on 1.3.1979. He qualified the degree of Graduation from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. He was entrusted the charge and duties of Block Extension Educator on 31.5.1998. There are two avenues for appointment to the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator as per Rules 7 and 9 read with Appendix 'B'. According to Rule 9, recruitment to the Service for the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator is to be made by direct recruitment or by transfer or deputation of an officer/official already in service of any State Government or the Government of India. Appendix B provide for academic qualification and experience for both modes, namely, direct recruitment and appointment by method other than direct recruitment. The qualifications in both the cases are same. The petitioner has been working on the post of Block Extension Educator since 1998, which post is claimed to be equivalent to the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator. The petitioner was only degree holder and on that basis he has been working on additional charge on the post of Block Extension Educator (P-7). The aforementioned mode adopted by the respondents is wholly in accordance with the Rules as is evident from the perusal of order dated 19.4.2004 (P-9). The vires of the Rules for providing avenues of promotion has been challenged and on our repeated queries, no law has been cited to support the contention that service rules must provide avenues of promotion, especially in cases where in addition to direct appointment, the Rules provide for appointment on the post on transfer or on deputation basis. Similarly, no law has been cited with regard to compelling the respondents to raise the age of appointment by direct recruitment or by promotion from 35 to 50. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.