AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—Tamilnadu Agricultural Officers Association, rep. by its State President has challenged the order passed by the
Secretary to Government, Rural Development, Chennai-9, in G.O. Ms. No. 231, Rural Development Department dated 15.10.1996, by which
the government have abolished the post of Extension Officer (Social Forestry). The impugned Government order reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU ABSTRACT
JAWAHAR VELAI VAIPPU THITTAM-Im-plementation of Social
Forestry Works-Extension Officer (Social Forestry). Posts sanctioned-abolition of posts Orders-Issued.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CSSI.) DEPARTMENT
Dt.15.10.1996 G.O. Ms. No. 231
Read:
l. G.O. Ms. No. 485, Rural Development Department, Dt. 23.6.1986.
G.O.ID. No. 190, Rural Development Departments dt. 12.6.1995.
ORDER
In the G.O. first read above, orders were issued for creation of one post of extension officer ( Social Forestry) each Panchayat Union for effective
implementation of Social Forestry scheme implemented under the erstwhile MRPP/RLEGP. in the orders 2nd read above, the said posts were
continued for the period upto 30.9.1996.
2) The Government of India have effected certain modifications of implementation of Jawahar Velai Vaippu Thittam during 1996-97. In that
context, the question of continuing the post of Extension Officer (Social Forestry) has been examined by government and it has been decided that,
the post of extension officer (Social Forestry) sanctioned to each panchayat Union or implementation of social forestry works under the erstwhile
NREP/RLEGP and continued under JVVT shall be abolished with effect from 1st October 1996 afternoon.
3) The Director of Agrl. and the collectors as the case may be, should reallocate the staff by abolition the posts and send a report to the Director
of Rural Development Chennai expeditiously.
4) This order issued with the concurrence of Agriculture department vide U.O. No. Nil dt. 8.10.1996 and Finance Dept. vide. U.O. No. 3534 of
IS/P/96 dt.6.9.1996.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
S.NARAYAN, Secretary to Government To: THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT Chennai-15.
The Director of Agrl. Chennai-5.
All Dist. Collectors.
The Directors of Treasurier & Accounts Chennai-15.
The Pay & Accounts Officers, Madurai-20.
The Accountant General, Ms. 6/18/35/(4 copies each).
All Divl Development Officers/Block Dev. Officers.
The post of Extension Officer (Social Forestry) was originally sanctioned to prevent the destruction in forests and to grow more trees in the
forests. The Government of India had allotted huge sum for the intensive implementation of the above scheme when they introduced 20 Point
Programme in 1972. The necessity became inevitable, because of the destruction of the forests which resulted in poor rain which in turn affected
the agricultural operation. That was the reason why the government intensively implemented the scheme and the main works, rather it could be said
that the only work under the Scheme was to plant trees in the forests. The said scheme was implemented with the main power of the rural folks.
Therefore it served two purposes 1) growth of trees in the forests and 2) employment to the rural folks.
The work was shifted now from NREP/RLEGP to Jawahar Velai Vaippu Thit-tam. The Government of India have not abolished the scheme or
the work which was started under Twenty Point Programme. There is absolutely no necessity to abolish the post of Extension Officer (Social
Forestry). Throughout the State under the above scheme, each Panchayat Union was provided with an Extension Officer (Social Forestry was to
look after the implementation of the scheme by seedling and planting the trees in the forests.-The main work of these people is to make land fit for
plantation, seeding and planting and to ensure that young plants are saved from the forest animals, pesticides. For each and every stage officials
cannot approach the Government or the department and claim money to meet for the expenses. That was the reason why all the Extension Officers
(Social Forestry) were given initially some advance amount with liberty to borrow and carry on the work of plantation. Thereafter expenses will be
reimbursed by the Panchayat Union under the Scheme. Now all of a sudden, under the impugned order the government have abolished the post of
Extension Officer (Social Forestry)- Aggrieved by the above, the Petitioner-Association made a representation to the government, because
notwithstanding the abolition of the post, persons who were promoted and continuing in the post of Extension Officer (S.F.) for years together
faced reversion for want of vacancy.
The Extension Officers (Social Forestry) are Technical staff with agricultural knowledge. Some of them are certificate holders in agricultural
subject, others are Diploma holders in Agriculture. Since the Petitioner''s representation to the Government did not yield any fruitful result, the
Association was constrained to file the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
Creation and abolition of the post are purely prerogative of the Government and courts cannot issue any directions to the Respondents to create
any post in the cadre as sought for by the Petitioner. In this context, it is worthwhile to extract few judgments of the Supreme Court on the power
of courts to interfere with the domain of the executive.
In P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, at paragraph 10 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as
follows:
Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and
other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to the fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the
exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the constitution of India and it is
not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment of eligibility criteria or averiues of
promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change
the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criterial and other conditions of
service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by
appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by
undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service,
as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of
the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and
except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no
right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.
The above legal position has been affirmed in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman,
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and at paragraph 37, the Apex Court held as follows:
that creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General,
Ahmedabad and Others, . Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the
Respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot
arrogate itself the powers of the executive or legislative. There is broad separation of powers under the constitution, and the judiciary, too, must
know its limits.
In a recent decision, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Navneet Verma, , the Supreme Court after considering various decisions, summarised the
power of the government in creating/abolishing a post as follows:
a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the government;
b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity;
c) Creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and every sovereign government has this power in the interest and necessity of
internal administration.
d) Creation, continuation and abolition of posts are all decided by the government in the interest of administration and general public, e) The court
would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the government had acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to
create a post or its decision suffers from malafide legal or factual;
f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.
In view of the settled legal position, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs.