Maharashtra Rajya Zilla Parishad Vistar Adhikari Sanskhyiki Sanghatana vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

By the instant petition, the petitioner had initially challenged Rule 6(6) of the Maharashtra Development Services (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2014 and the then existing promotional scheme, inter alia, on the ground that the differential promotional quotas prescribed for the eight feeder cadres were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had also sought a declaration that the eight feeder cadres were comparable for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Block Development Officer, Class-II (Gazetted), and, in the alternative, enhancement of the promotional quota of the District Service (Class-III) (Statistics) from 10% to 30%. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government issued the Notification dated 12.01.2024. Thereafter, in terms of the order dated 15.09.2026, the petitioner has now confined the challenge to the said Notification. The original challenge and the consequential reliefs, therefore, do not survive in their earlier form.

Briefly stated, the petitioner is the Nagpur Division Branch Office of the Maharashtra Rajya Zilla Parishad Vistar Adhikari Sanskhyiki Sanghatana, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, bearing Registration No. DNE/998. The said Sanghatana has been constituted for protecting the interests and rights of Vistar Adhikari (Sanskhyiki) / Extension Officers (Statistics) and for espousing the grievances of its members relating to their service conditions. The petitioner has approached this Court principally in relation to the manner in which appointments by promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service, Group-B (Gazetted)/ Assistant Block Development Officer, are to be made from the various feeder cadres.

The Rules governing the recruitment to the Maharashtra Development Services were initially framed in 1973 and they are subsequently amended from time to time, by the amendment introduced in 1979, different percentages were prescribed for promotion to the Maharashtra Development Services, Class - II / Assistant Block Development Officer, from various cadres of District Services and District Technical Service (Class III). The promotional quota of the Statistical cadre was initially fixed at 5%. The petitioner states that consequent to subsequent changes in the cadre structure and increase in the sanction strength of Extension Officer (Statistics), representations were made from time to time seeking revision of the promotional quota. A similar grievance was also raised before Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 136 of 2011. By order dated 25.07.2012, the State Government was directed to consider the anomaly in the promotional quota. Pursuant thereto, the Rules were amended in the year 2014 and the quota for Statistical cadre was increased from 5% to 10%.

The petitioner, however, continued to make representation contending that the promotional quota had not been revised in accordance with the prevailing cadre strength. The sanction strength and promotional percentages relied upon by the petitioner show, inter-alia, 962 sanctioned posts in the Statistical cadre with 10% promotional quota and 1032 sanction posts in the Executive and Village Extension cadre with 40% promotional quota. The petitioner has also placed on record subsequent representations made in the years 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021.

Prior to the filing of the present petition, the State Government issued notification dated 18.09.2018 amending the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1973. The amendment substantially altered the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Block Development Officer, Group-B (Gazetted), by providing for promotion on the basis of a common merit list prepared from the result of a Limited Departmental Examination common to all eight feeder cadres. For a transitional period of four years from the publication of the 2018 Amendment Rules, or till preparation of the common merit list, whichever was earlier, promotions were to be made in accordance with the transitional mechanism prescribed therein. Thus, the cadre-wise quota system was sought to be replaced by a common merit-based mechanism.

The aforesaid mechanism was opposed by various departments, which submitted representations to the State Government seeking its reconsideration. The validity of the 2018 Amendment Rules was also challenged before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5123 of 2019. During the pendency of the said petition, a communication dated 10.02.2020 received from the State Government was placed on record, pursuant to which the petitioner therein sought leave to withdraw the petition. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to re-agitate the issue in case of need.

Thereafter, upon consideration of the representations received from various departments and the issues arising from the mechanism introduced by the 2018 Amendment Rules, the State Government issued notification dated 12.01.2024, whereby Rule 6 was again substituted. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) provided for appointment by promotion of employees holding posts in the feeder cadres and having at least seven years' regular service, on the basis of seniority and in accordance with the percentages specified for the respective eight feeder cadres. Sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Rule 6 were also deleted, thereby discontinuing the common merit mechanism introduced in 2018 and restoring cadre-wise promotion on the basis of seniority and the prescribed percentages.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid promotional scheme and the Notification dated 12.01.2024, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking, inter-alia, interference with the impugned provisions, Notification and appropriate directions for a common basis for promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service, Class – II, (Gazetted)/ Assistant Block Development Officer.

The controversy that remains for consideration is, therefore, whether the notification dated 12.01.2024, insofar as it provides for promotion on the basis of seniority and the specified cadre-wise percentages under Rule 6 (1) (b), suffers from arbitrariness, discrimination or any other legal infirmity.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.S. Warulkar, submits that the differential promotional quotas prescribed for the feeder cadres have no rational basis and result in unequal promotional opportunities amongst employees who are eligible for the appointment to the same promotional posts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the classification amongst the feeder cadre is not founded upon any intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted that the Statistical cadre performs developmental functions at village and block levels and that it’s members are also on occasions entrusted with the duties of the Extension Officer belonging to the other cadres. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that nature of experience acquired by the Statistical cadre cannot justify the substantially lower promotional quota prescribed for. He submits that the mere prescription of different percentages in the Rules cannot by itself justify the parity in promotional opportunities, particularly when the feeder cadres lead to the same promotional post. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent - State Government was required to undertake a rational assessment of cadre strength and the nature of duties before fixing or continuing the respective promotional percentages. It is submitted that the said decision had already taken note of the grievance concerning the promotional opportunities available to the Statistical cadre and that, according to the petitioner, the subsequent amendment increasing its quota to 10% did not address the underlying disparity.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the common merit mechanism contemplated by the Notification dated 18.09.2018 provided an objective basis for selection from all the feeder cadres. According to him, its withdrawal by the Notification dated 12.01.2024 has resulted in restoration of the cadre-wise promotional arrangement, which is under challenge in the present petition. It is submitted that the justification advanced by the respondents is principally based on the increase in the number of feeder cadres from 6 under the Government Notification dated 10.08.1973 to 8 under the Government Notification dated 13.01.2014, the alleged greater involvement of certain cadres in rural development, and the enhancement of the quota for the Statistical cadre from 5% to 10%. According to the petitioner, none of these circumstances provides a constitutionally sustainable basis for differential treatment amongst the feeder cadres.

It is contended that the assertion that certain cadres have greater or maximum direct involvement in rural development is subjective and unsupported by any statutory provision or other material demonstrating such distinction. The employees of the Statistical cadre are also involved at various levels of rural development administration and work in coordination with other Departments and cadres functioning under the Zilla Parishad. Their experience extends to the functioning of various Departments, including general administration, health, works, women and child welfare and the District Rural Development Agency, apart from their work at the Panchayat Samiti level and under the Integrated Child Development Services. There is, therefore, according to the petitioner, no demonstrable basis to treat the Statistical cadre as having lesser involvement in rural development so as to justify a substantially lower promotional quota.

The learned counsel further submits that the employees belonging to the District Service (Class-III) (Executive and Village Extension) and District Technical Service (Class-III) (Agriculture) cadres are entitled to 40% and 15%, respectively, of the vacancies earmarked for appointment by selection to the Maharashtra Development Service (Class-II) / Assistant Block Development Officer, whereas the Statistical cadre is confined to 10%. Consequently, employees from those cadres, including those junior to the petitioner, are stated to have greater promotional opportunities to the gazetted posts. The disparity, according to the petitioner, is further accentuated by the different modes of recruitment. While 100% of the posts in the Statistical cadre are filled by direct recruitment through competitive examination, the Executive and Village Extension and Agriculture cadres comprise both direct recruits and promotees, with direct recruitment stated to account for 25% and 50%, respectively. The remaining feeder cadres are stated to be substantially or entirely filled by departmental promotion.

It is further submitted that the educational qualifications and eligibility conditions prescribed for the feeder cadres are comparable and that all eight cadres ultimately constitute feeder cadres for appointment to the Maharashtra Development Service (Class-II) / Assistant Block Development Officer. In these circumstances, according to the petitioner, prescription of substantially different quotas without any rational and demonstrable basis having nexus with the object of appointment to the higher service amounts to hostile discrimination. Merely enhancing the Statistical quota from 5% to 10%, it is submitted, does not address this fundamental grievance. The historical amendments made in 1979, 1984 and 1990 cannot, according to the petitioner, by themselves validate the present classification. The learned counsel therefore submits that appointment by selection to the Maharashtra Development Service (Class-II) (Gazetted) (Assistant Block Development Officer) ought to be governed by a uniform criterion based on merit and seniority rather than the existing differential quota.

On these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification dated 12.01.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside and that the procedure contemplated under the notification dated 18.09.2018 ought to be continued for the purpose of promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service, Group-B (Gazetted).

Per Contra, Mr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent – State submits that the challenge to Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2024 on the ground that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. It is submitted that the feeder cadres for appointment by selection to the Maharashtra Development (Class – II) (Gazetted)/ Assistant Block Development Officer) had been prescribed and modified from time to time by the statutory amendment having regard to the nature of duties, involvement in Rural Development, sanction strength and promotional avenues available to the respective cadres.

The learned Advocate General further submits that the impugned notification dated 12.01.2024 is a statutory amendment made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The prescription of qualifications, feeder cadres, method of recruitment and percentage of promotional quota falls within the domain of the rule-making authority, subject to constitutional limitations.

The respondents relied upon the history of the recruitment Rules to submit that the cadre-wise promotional quotas are not a new creation of the impugned notification. The system originated in the earlier Rules and amendments and has continued, with modifications, over several decades. The 2014 amendment merely revised the existing arrangement, including enhancement of the Statistical cadre's quota from 5% to 10% and inclusion of the Health cadre, thereby bringing the number of feeder cadres to eight.

It was submitted that the percentages prescribed for the different feeder cadres have been determined after taking into consideration relevant service-related factors, including the nature and extent of involvement of the respective cadres in rural development, the sanctioned strength in the feeder cadres and the promotional avenues available to employees in those cadres. The respondents have particularly pointed out that the Agriculture, Ministerial and Executive and Village Extension cadres have greater direct involvement in rural development, and that the quota structure has been prescribed keeping such considerations in view.

The respondents further submitted that the Statistical cadre cannot be compared merely on the basis of the fact that the employees of all eight cadres ultimately become eligible for promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service / Assistant Block Development Officer. It was pointed out that the feeder cadres have different duties, sanctioned strengths and promotional structures. In the case of the Statistical cadre, the post of Extension Officer (Statistics) is stated to be filled entirely by nomination at the feeder level and there is no lower cadre from which promotion to that post takes place. The sanctioned strength of the said cadre has also been placed on record.

As regards the 2018 amendment, the respondents submitted that the mechanism introduced therein was not an irrevocable or permanent alteration of the service structure. The 2018 Rules themselves contemplated a transitional period of four years or till preparation of the common merit list, whichever was earlier. The State Government was therefore competent to reconsider the mechanism and amend the Rules subsequently.

The respondents submitted that the notification dated 12.01.2024 has not singled out the petitioner's cadre for adverse treatment. Rather, it prescribes a uniform statutory framework applicable to all the eight feeder cadres and specifies the percentage applicable to each cadre. The promotion is to be made from eligible employees having the requisite regular service and on the basis of seniority within the quota prescribed for the respective cadre.

It was further submitted that the mere fact that the 2024 Rules prescribe different percentages for different feeder cadres does not, by itself, establish violation of Articles 14 or 16. The feeder cadres constitute distinct service categories and the State is entitled to prescribe different promotional quotas on the basis of relevant service considerations. The respondents therefore submitted that no material has been placed on record by the petitioner to establish that the classification adopted by the rule-making authority is without any rational basis.

The respondents also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim continuation of the 2018 scheme merely because such scheme had been introduced earlier. The subsequent exercise of the same rule-making power, unless shown to be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law, cannot be interdicted merely because it results in a different recruitment mechanism. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner has essentially sought substitution of its preferred method of promotion for the method prescribed by the competent authority. Such a challenge, in the absence of demonstrable constitutional infirmity, does not furnish a ground for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The respondents accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the pleadings, the material placed on record and the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1973, as amended from time to time.

The principal challenge raised by the petitioner is to the validity of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1973, as amended by the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2024. The grievance of the petitioner, essentially, is that different percentages have been prescribed for appointment by promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service, Class-II / Assistant Block Development Officer, from different feeder cadres, and that such differentiation adversely affects the promotional prospects of employees belonging to the Statistical cadre.

At the outset, it would be necessary to bear in mind that the Maharashtra Development Service Rules, 1973 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The power to frame rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service necessarily includes the power to prescribe the source and mode of recruitment, identify the feeder cadres, prescribe the eligibility conditions and determine the proportion in which vacancies in a promotional post are to be filled from different eligible sources. The 2024 Amendment has also been made in exercise of the same constitutional rule-making power.

The question, therefore, is not whether another method of distributing the promotional vacancies amongst the feeder cadres could have been adopted by the State Government. The Court is required to examine whether the classification made by the rule-making authority has a rational basis, whether the prescription is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory, and whether it transgresses any constitutional or statutory limitation. It may be noted that the distribution of promotional posts amongst the respective feeder cadres/departments, as prescribed by the 2014 amendment, has been retained under the impugned amendment dated 12.01.2024.

There is an additional aspect which assumes importance. The notification dated 12-01-2024 does not take away the promotional avenue available to the feeder cadre. On the contrary, the amended rules specifically provide for appointment to the post of Assistant Block Development Officer, Group-B (Gazetted) by promotion and nomination in ratio of 50 : 50. It further prescribes the respective percentage of promotional vacancies which are to be filled for the identified cadres. The table reflecting percentage of reservation for appointment to the post of Assistant Block Development Officer, Group-B (Gazetted) by nomination under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, is reproduced herein below:

The prescription of such percentages has to be understood in the cadre structure. The Government has identified the feeder services from which eligible employees can be considered for promotion and has earmarked a prescribed percentage of the promotional vacancies for such feeder cadres. The purpose of prescribing such percentage is to regulate the source of recruitment and to ensure that the employees belonging to the respective feeder cadres have an opportunity to be considered for promotion to the higher post. Such prescription cannot, however, be understood as conferred upon every employee belonging to the feeder cadre as an individual right to promotion. In other words, the percentage operates at the level of cadre and the source of recruitment whereas promotion operates at the level of an individual employees after the eligibility conditions, seniority, suitability and other requirements prescribed by the applicable rules are satisfied. The existence of a promotional quota consequently goes right to an avenue for consideration, it does not guarantee promotion to each employee falling within the feeder cadre.

It is not in dispute that promotional post has more than one feeder cadre and the governing recruitment of service rules prescribe separate percentages / quotas for consideration of eligible employees belonging to each such feeder cadre. The petitioners essentially contend that prescribing different percentage for different feeder cadre results in unequal challenges for promotion. The contention, however, cannot be considered de hors the statutory scheme governing the recruitment and promotion to the promotional post. Where the rules themselves recognized more than one feeder cadre and prescribed a particular quota or percentage for each such cadre, the right of an employee is to be considered for promotion against the quota earmarked for his/her feeder cadre, subject to fulfilment of prescribed eligibility conditions. There is no vested right of an employee to claim that all feeder cadres must necessarily have an identical percentage or that the promotional vacancies must be distributed equally amongst all feeder cadres.

The constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution does not prohibit reasonable classification. What is prohibited is hostile or arbitrary discrimination. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld classification amongst employees for the purpose of promotion and held that even persons integrated into one service could, for the purpose of promotion to a higher cadre, be classified on the basis of relevant distinctions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19, recognized that the test is whether the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which reads as thus:

It is well settled that matters relating to the constitution and restructuring of cadres, prescription of eligibility criteria, and determination of the mode and avenues of recruitment and promotion fall within the domain of the competent rule-making authority. The State, in exercise of its rule-making power, is competent to alter the recruitment framework having regard to administrative requirements and exigencies, subject, of course, to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. This principle has also been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2003 (6) SCC 535. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as under:

It is also relevant that the sanctioned strength of the cadre of Extension Officer (Statistics) was stated to be 773 in the year 2012 and that, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 14.09.2006, the cadre of Assistant Accountant Officer (Statistics) had already been merged with the cadre of Extension Officer (Statistics). The material placed on record further indicates that recruitment to the Statistical cadre is by nomination to the extent of 100 per cent and that there is no corresponding lower cadre providing an internal feeder channel in the manner available in the other cadres. The sanctioned strength of the Statistical cadre is stated to be 871 posts, whereas the sanctioned strength of the feeder cadres constituting the remaining seven channels exceeds 1000 posts. The State has also taken into consideration the nature of functions performed by the Statistical cadre and the fact that the Statistical Department is not directly involved in the day-to-day decision-making and administrative processes concerning rural development in the same manner as the other feeder cadres. These aspects form part of the service structure and constitute relevant factors which the rule-making authority was entitled to take into consideration while determining the promotional quota.

The petitioner has placed considerable reliance on the fact that employees belonging to the Statistical cadre are recruited through competitive examination, whereas the other feeder cadres comprise both direct recruits and promotees. In our view, this distinction, by itself, does not render the impugned provision constitutionally infirm. The mode of recruitment to a feeder cadre and the percentage of vacancies earmarked from that cadre for promotion to a higher service operate in distinct fields of service jurisprudence. The fact that a particular feeder cadre has a higher proportion of direct recruits does not, by itself, confer a constitutional right to an identical promotional quota. Likewise, the fact that some employees belonging to other feeder cadres, who may be junior to the petitioner in their respective cadres, secure promotion to the Maharashtra Development Service, Class-II (Gazetted)/ Assistant Block Development Officer), does not, by itself, establish hostile discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s contention that uniform percentages ought to have been prescribed for all the eight feeder cadres essentially calls upon this Court to examine the wisdom of the policy adopted by the rule-making authority. In exercise of judicial review, the Court is concerned with the legality and constitutional validity of the service rules and does not ordinarily sit in appeal over the policy wisdom of the rule-making authority or substitute its own view as to the appropriate structure of the service. In P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that matters relating to the constitution and structure of a service, cadre strength, creation or abolition of posts and prescription of avenues of promotion fall within the domain of the employer or rule-making authority and ordinarily do not confer a legally enforceable right, unless a statutory or constitutional right is infringed. The relevant paragraph no. 10 is reproduced hereunder:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and ors. v. Krishna Kumar and ors, (2019) 4 SCC 319, has consistently drawn a distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and a vested right to promotion. In the said case, in paragraph No. 10, it is held as under:

It is equally significant that the petitioner has not pointed out any technical infirmity in the procedure adopted for making the 2024 Amendment, nor has any specific statutory or constitutional prohibition against prescribing different promotional percentages for different feeder cadres been demonstrated. There is also no material placed before us to establish that the classification between the Statistical cadre and the other feeder cadres is wholly without basis or that the differentiation is founded upon an irrelevant consideration.

We therefore find no merit in the submission that merely because the Statistical cadre was earlier entitled to a particular proportion of promotional vacancies, the State Government was constitutionally disabled from revisiting that proportion. The State, as employer and rule-making

authority, is entitled to organize its services and determine the appropriate recruitment and promotional structure, provided the resulting classification withstands the constitutional test.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, any infringement of an accrued or vested service right, or any lack of competence on the part of the respondent State Government in framing the 2024 Amendment. No technical or substantive infirmity in the impugned amendment has been demonstrated.

Consequently, the challenge to Rule 6, as amended by the Maharashtra Development Service (Constitution, Classification and Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2024, fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent – State may however consider the feasibility of earmarking 10% out of 50% promotional quota to be filled through Limited Departmental Examination, with a view to maintaining healthy competition and providing adequate opportunity to eligible candidates from the feeder cadres on the basis of merit.

Rule is discharged.