The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondents to provide equal opportunity for all individuals to acquire service qualifications, and the exclusion of the petitioner from the promotion panel based on the failure to meet the service qualification was deemed unjust.

1. The writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent herein passed in his Proceedings No.VI4/12918/2002 dated 4.10.2002 rejecting the petitioner's request for inclusion of his name in the panel of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I fit for promotion as Extension Officer drawn for the year 2002 in the appropriate place and the consequential order passed by the second respondent herein rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition in his Proceedings No.Na.Ka.3556/2003/C3, dated 21.4.2003 and quash the same and consequentially, direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Rural Welfare Officers Grade-I fit for promotion as Extension Officers drawn for the year 2002 in the appropriate place, above his immediate junior, and consequentially further direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Extension Officer with effect from 7.4.2003, the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Surveyor-cum-Draughtsman on consolidated pay in the Survey Department by order dated 15.3.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted time scale of pay. As per the Government policy, the petitioner was redeployed from Survey Department to Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department by G.O.Ms.No.308, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 11.6.1990.

3. Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Srivaigundam Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District by order dated 18.9.1990. In the year 1992, he passed all the Departmental Tests for promotion for the post of Assistant. The Government issued G.O.12, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 20.1.1998 regularising the service of the petitioner as Junior Assistant retrospectively with effect from 18.9.1990.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for Bhavanisagar training from 2.6.1998 to 31.7.1998 and he had completed the training successfully. The first respondent passed an order dated 2.11.1998 to the effect that the petitioner had completed the probation satisfactorily. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant by an order dated 2.2.1999.

5. Though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant by order dated 2.2.1999, but his seniority was denied above his immediate junior Thiru.Jayaramachandran. After repeated representations, the revised seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant was fixed by the first respondent by order dated 17.2.2001 at Serial No.126C, above one Thiru.Jayaramachandran, who was promoted as Assistant on 21.6.1993. The petitioner was placed above Thiru.Jayaramachandran since the petitioner is senior to Thiru.Jayaramachandran. The first respondent took note of the instructions dated 23.4.1994 of the Director of Rural Development and the letter dated 02.03.1999 that the individual right should not be affected due to administrative changes in fixing the seniority of the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I by an order dated 6.9.2001 of the first respondent. The posts of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I and Assistant are the equal posts. One should have served as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I for one year to get promotion to the post of Extension Officer.

7. The first respondent prepared a panel dated 16.09.2002 of Rural Welfare Officers fit for promotion as Extension Officer for the year 2002. The crucial date for inclusion of names in the panel is 01.03.2002. While, Thiru.Jayaramachandran was included in the panel at Serial No.7, the petitioner was not included in the panel. Based on the panel, Thiru.Jayaramachandran was promoted as Extension Officer on 7.4.2003. The reason for non inclusion in the panel is that the petitioner did not serve one year as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I as on 1.3.2002.

8. The petitioner made representation to the first respondent