JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI , J. 1. Writ petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries (PSs) and have been working in such capacity since 1995. In view of the 73rd constitutional amendment and for better co-ordination in implementation of various schemes in the Panchayat area and other local bodies, the Departments of Panchayat and that of Rural Development of Andaman and Nicobar Administration were amalgamated. 2. At the time of amalgamation, a proposal was made to create promotional avenue for PSs to the post of Office Superintendent which is on par with Block Development Officers (BDOs)/Joint Block Development Officers and thereafter to the amalgamated cadre of Assistant Secretary. The proposal was not accepted primarily on the ground that the PSs had been appointed only between 1995 and 2001 and had hardly completed seven years while the staff of the feeder cadre who were eligible for promotion to Office Superintendent had completed 35 years and were still awaiting for promotion. Hence, the issue of amalgamating the cadre of PSs in the amalgamated cadre was not acted upon and Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPs) by way of two financial upgradation upon completion of 12/24 years was extended to PSs. It was proposed their avenue for future promotion may be considered after completion of the aforementioned period. 3. Petitioners as well as their association repeatedly approached the respondent authorities, inter alia, praying for merger of the cadre of PSs with Extension Officers (EOs) and to be considered for promotion to the post of BDO. Representations were remained unheeded to and the respondent authorities proceeded to fill up three posts in the BDO cadre through promotion from the feeder post i.e. Extension Officers as per the recruitment rules. 4. This prompted the petitioners to approach the Tribunal in O.A.No.351/1389/2023/AN with MA/351/986/2023/AN. The Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. As the respondents proceeded with the appointment to the post of BDO by way of promotion from EOs, petitioners approached the Tribunal again for an interim order in OA/351/01627/2023/AN. The Tribunal having denied the relief, petitioners approached the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.CT/82/2023 and the said Bench directed the Tribunal to consider the issue of interim order at the earliest. Thereafter, the Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. The Tribunal having denied the relief, petitioners approached the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.CT/82/2023 and the said Bench directed the Tribunal to consider the issue of interim order at the earliest. Thereafter, the Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. In the meantime, on 22.02.2024, the respondent authorities dismissed the representation of the petitioners which was challenged in the aforesaid OA. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 reiterated the decision of the respondent authorities which is challenged before us. 5. Mr. Samanta submits the Tribunal as well as the respondent authority had failed to consider the hub of the grievance of the writ petitioners. Since 1995 the writ petitioners are working as PSs and do not have any avenue of promotion. Relying on Dr. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India , 1990 (Supp)SCC 688 he submits promotion is a normal incidence of service and there is no justification on the part of the respondent authority to consider his clients for promotion to the post of BDO when EOs who are discharging similar duties are entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post. He also relied on various DoPT Memoranda which state there ought to be regular cadre review so that isolated posts are merged and avenues of promotion be created for all employees. 6. In reply, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty for the respondents authorities and Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar for private respondents i.e. EOs submits PSs and EOs are completely separate cadres, their area of operation, nature of work are wholly different while PSs fall in the ministerial cadre, EOs belong to the Non-Ministerial cadre. Even the proposal exploring avenues of promotion to the PSs was to the post of Office Superintendent in the Ministerial cadre and not to BDO i.e. Non- Ministerial Cadre. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty further clarify PS cadre has not been converted to Non-Ministerial as has been submitted before the Tribunal. 7. In view of the rival submissions of the parties the issue which falls for decision is as follows: Whether this Court ought to direct respondent authorities to amend the recruitment rules so that the P.S.Cadre be considered as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of BDO. 8. 7. In view of the rival submissions of the parties the issue which falls for decision is as follows: Whether this Court ought to direct respondent authorities to amend the recruitment rules so that the P.S.Cadre be considered as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of BDO. 8. Presently recruitment rules provide for appointment to the post of BDO by way of promotion or by deputation in the following manner. “Promotion : From amongst the Graduate Extension Officers with 06 years of regular service/Non-Graduate Extension Officers with 10 years of regular service in the grade. Note : The eligibility list for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion by the officers of the prescribed qualifying grade/post. Combined seniority list of the Extension Officer will be prepared accordingly. Deputation : Officers under the Central/State Govt. and UTs. (a) (i) holding analogous post on regular basis OR (ii) with 06 years regular service in the post in the scale of pay of PB-I Rs. 5200-20200 plus Gr Pay Rs. 2800 OR (iii) with 10 years regular service in the post in the scale or pay of PB-I Rs. 5200-20200 plus Gr. Pay Rs. 2400, and (b) Possessing the following qualification and experience : (1) A Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline from a recognized University. (2) Two years experience in Administration in any discipline relating to Rural Development. (The Departmental Officers in the feeder category who are in the direct line of promotion, will not be eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation. Similarly, deputationist shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion)” 9. As per the aforesaid rule only officers in the cadre of EOs having qualifying service are to be feeder post for appointment by way of promotion. As PSs fall in the Non Gazetted Ministerial Cadre, they are not considered as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of BDO which is in the Non-Ministerial Cadre. 10. Mr. Samanta strongly contends the classification as ‘ministerial’ cadre is a misnomer as there is no distinction between the duties discharged by the PSs and the feeder post i.e. EOs which is in the ‘non-ministerial’ cadre.He submits both the cadres work together to implement various schemes under the Panchayati Raj. They were recruited through a common selection process and have the same pay scale. They were recruited through a common selection process and have the same pay scale. In fact, qualification for PSs is higher i.e. graduate, while graduation is not a mandatory criteria for EOs. 11. For better appreciation of Mr.Samanta’s submission it may be apposite to examine job descriptions of the two posts. JOB DESCRIPTION OF PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 1. Incharge of the office of the Gram Panchayat. 2. He shall work under the direct supervision of the Pradhan and shall be responsible to the Gram Panchayat through the Pradhan. 3. To prepare the Gram Panchayat Budget in time. 4. To have custody of all papers and documents of the Gram Panchayat and to in safe custody. 5. To submit Gant-in aid application to the Authorities as per the GIA Rules. 6. To prepare the monthly and quarterly statement of accounts and placing the same before the Gram Panchayat. 7. To inspect work-site for assessing the works in progress and for giving directions, if the works are not carriedout according to sanction. 8. To supervise and control the staff posted in the Gram Panchayat. 9. Visit the sites where works are undertaken by individuals who are granted loan by the Panchayat and submission of reports to the competent authority. 10. Attend to complaints relating to developmental works in the Panchayat and to submit reports to the concerned authority in the Administration. 11. Prepare the asset register of the Gram Panchayat. 12. Maintenance of all records/register/accounts as laid down in the A&N Islands Panchayat Regulation and the Rules notified thereunder. 13. Implementation of MGNREG scheme and other schemes in the Gram Panchayat, visit the site and submit the reports to the authorities. 14. Submission of all kinds of reports/information in respect of Gram Panchayat to the authorities calling for such reports/information. 15. Perform all other functions and duties as assigned in the A&N Islands (Panchayat)Regulation, and the rules notified thereunder. 16. Any other duties as assigned by the authorities from time to time. JOB DESCRIPTION OF EXTENSION OFFICER i) Implementation of Rural Development Programmes in their respective sector at Village and Block Levels in coordination with VLW/Gram Sevika and the staff of line Deptts.Ensure achievement of target fixed upon them. ii) Assist the PRIs and the line Deptts. in preparing Rural Development Schemes. JOB DESCRIPTION OF EXTENSION OFFICER i) Implementation of Rural Development Programmes in their respective sector at Village and Block Levels in coordination with VLW/Gram Sevika and the staff of line Deptts.Ensure achievement of target fixed upon them. ii) Assist the PRIs and the line Deptts. in preparing Rural Development Schemes. iii) Co-ordinate with Village Level Workers/Gram Sevikas, the Pradhans and the beneficiaries in collecting the application forms from the identified beneficiary belonging to BPL, scrutinizing the applications and to process thereof with DRDA and other Implementing Departments for sanction. iv) Submission of various reports on RD Programmes to the Authorities. v) To ensure that the schemes are implemented as per the guidelines. vi) To give wide publicity about the schemes. vii) Creation of awareness. viii) Extension Officer, Rural Engineering will provide engineering support to the development schemes and NREGA work in the block. ix) Any other works as assigned by the authorities from time to time. 12. Scanning the aforesaid job descriptions it would appear work of the PSs is predominately restricted to the office of the Gram Panchayat and relates to maintenance of records, preparation of budgets, submission of grants-in-aid and preparation of statement of accounts, whereas that of the EOs relates to implementation of Rural Development Programmes in coordination with Village Level Workers, Gram Savikas, Pradhans, beneficiaries, submission of reports on programmes, spreading publicity and awareness of the such programmes for effective implementation. Though PSs may be required to inspect sites and submit report with regard to work done therein an overall view their work profile demonstrates it predominantly involves office work at the Gram Panchayat office. On the other hand, EOs operate on the field by coordinating the activities of Village Level Workers, Gram Savikes, Pradhans, beneficiaries and other stake holders to ensure a successful implementation of Rural Development Programmes at the block level. Both scope of work as well as the area of operation of the two cadres are different. In such view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal that the two cadres belong to different classification and operate in different fields cannot be faulted. 13. Even at the time of amalgamation of the two departments, proposal for creating avenue of promotion of PSs was to the post of Office Superintendent in the Ministerial Cadre and not to the BDO i.e. a Non- Ministerial Cadre. 13. Even at the time of amalgamation of the two departments, proposal for creating avenue of promotion of PSs was to the post of Office Superintendent in the Ministerial Cadre and not to the BDO i.e. a Non- Ministerial Cadre. Under such circumstances the prayer of the petitioners that the PSs be considered as a feeder posts for promotion to BDO is wholly unjustified and has been rightly turned down 14. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that in various Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT, {O.M No. 35034/9/2010-Estt.(D) dated 10.02.2011 and O.M.No.I-11011/16/2022-CRD dated 13.09.2022 (para 6 –Dealing with Isolated posts)} the Government has proposed regular cadre review to ensure isolated posts without promotional avenue are merged with exiting cadre. 15. In fact at the time of amalgamation of the two departments, issue of promotional avenue for PSs was actively considered by the respondents as follows:- Even after a lapse of 2 decades future promotional avenue for the Cadre of PSs has not been finalised. In Dr. O.Z. Hussain (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows: “This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the services ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service” 16. In A.Satyanarayana and others vs. S.Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 the Supreme Court held that although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefor is. In that view of the matter, any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all time to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. Similar view was taken in Food Corporation of India and others vs. Purushotam Das Bansal and others, (2008) 5 SCC 100 as follows:- “9. Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. ….. … 12. Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. ….. … 12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the Superior Court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country.” 18. The aforesaid ratios cast a constitutional duty upon the respondents as an ideal employer to ensure avenues of promotion for its employees. No doubt ACP/MACP schemes provide a safety net to employees who suffer from stagnation due to lack of promotional avenue but they are not substitutes for promotion. The respondents were alive to this issue and in the proposal for amalgamation it was suggested promotional avenue be considered after officers in PS cadre have served for 12/24 years. Since 1995 petitioners are in the PS cadre and have served for about 3 decades. They have a legitimate expectation that the respondents would revisit the cadre structure and create promotional avenues in view of the observations in the amalgamation proposal and various DoPT memoranda. 19. Under such circumstances, though this Court is of the opinion petitioners being in the Ministerial Cadre cannot claim parity with EOs in the matter of promotion to the post of BDO, a non-Ministerial post, to avoid stagnation in a non-promotional cadre the respondent authorities are directed to review the cadre structure and consider formulation of a policy providing for promotional avenue to the petitioners and other officers in the P.S. cadre within four months from the date of communication of this order. 20. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 20. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 21. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities. I agree. - Gaurang Kanth, J.