Madras High Court
And Connected Miscellaneous Petitions vs State Of Tamilnadu on 19 December, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19 / 12 / 2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NOS.19901, 25894 AND 29016 OF 2008
AND 12025 AND 13298 OF 2012
AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
W.P.NO.19901 / 2008
1 S.MUNIYANDI
2 P.ANNAMALAI
3 P.IMMANUEL
4 J.RAJENDRAN
5 K.J.KISHORE KUMAR
6 M.CHANDRAKASAN
7 TMT.K.S.SUGANTHI
8 M.S.MOHAN RAM
9 V.SAMBATH
10 TMT.R.RADJAMANY
11 G.SRINIVASAN
12 S.ARUNACHALAM
13 R.KRISHNAMOORTHY
14 M.RAVI
15 P.ANBURAJAN
16 GO POOPTHI
17 TMT.VASANTHI GNANASESKAR
18 A.ARPUTHAM ... PETITIONERS
Vs.
1 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI 600 009.
2 DIRETOR OF HORTIULRUE &
PLANTATION CORPS (IN -CHARGE)
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI -5
3 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
CHEPUAK CHENNAI -5
4 TMT. A. GOMTHIHANGM
5 S. SIVASUBRAMANIAN
6 A. AIR KANAGARAJAN
7 S. KARUNANIDHI
8 R. GANDHI
9 D.A. BABU RVIVARMAN
10 P. BALAKRISHNAN
11 R. CHELLADURI
12 V. JEYARAJAN
13 K. PERIYAKARUPPAN
14 G. BASKAR RAJ
15 S. TOM P. SILAS
16 A.B. RAFIULLA
17 T.S. BALASUBRMANIAN
18 G. MANOHARAN
19 J. EDGER KON SALVAS
20 K. WESLY JEEVANRAJ
21 D. VIJYAKUMAR
22 V. PREMA
23 P.V. PREMKUMAR
24 U. PARAMASIVAM
25 J. MALLIKA
26 N. VELVIZHI
27 M. SHANTHI
28 R. UMARANI
29 K. SHANTHY
30 JAKKULA AKHANDARAO
31 T. TAMILMALAR
32 R.PREMA
33 A. BALA
34 B.JAYALAKSHMI
35 S. BABY PARVATHAM
36 R.RAVICHANDRAN
37 M. PONMALR
38 S.LAKHSMI
39 K. MURALIDHARN
40 A.ANUSUYA
41 S. LAKSHMANAN
42 AM.SHANTHI
43 N.A.M. RAJASINGH
44 K.SENTHIL KUMAR
45 SANTHI SAMINATHAN
46 PAKYALA PRATAPA RAO
47 C.KRISHNAKUMARI
48 C.AVAI MEENAKSHI
49 R.VADIVELKUMAR
50 S.SAMUTHIRAPANDIAN
51 J. SURENDRN JOSEPH
52 M. MADHAVAN
53 R. KRISHNAMOORTHY
54 S. RAMAMOORTHI
55 P. VADAMLAI
56 K. JEYA SELVN INBRAJ
57 EPPAN VETTAH EPPAN
58 A. CHITHRAKALA
59 J. BAMA
60 S. SHIV SANKAR SINGH
61 C.HARAKUMAR
62 J.EASTUS SAMUEL
63 S.MAHALINGA KANNAN
64 R.PANNEERSELVAM
65 C.SUMATHI
66 A.MARIMUTHU
67 V.TAMIZH SELVI
68 B.VALLIMAIL
69 D.SUSEELA
70 T.HEMA
71 T.KAMARAJ
72 K.MURUGANANDAM
73 S.PADMINI
74 S.RAJASEKARAN
75 K.JAYARAMAN
76 R.VADIVELU
77 SIVA KUMAR SINGH
78 R.SWARNA
79 MOHAMMED ASLAM
80 C.PALANI VELAYUTHAM
81 JAYAPRAKASH MISHRA
82 H.S.SIDDA GANGAIAH
83 N.PARVATHAMA
84 DAYA SANKARLAL SRIVASTAVA ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.548 Agriculture Department dt.28.12.2007 and quash Para No.2 of the said G.O.Ms.No.548 dated 28.12.2007 inasmuch as it allots more number of Assistant Director posts to Agriculture Department and less number of posts to Horticulture department and consequently direct the respondents to draw separate panel for the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture) and Assistant Director (Horticulture) as per G.O.MS.NO.537 dated 24/12/2007 and give promotion to the persons working in the Horticulture department as against the sanctioned and alloted posts.
(Prayer amended as per order dated 19.10.2012 in M.P.No.4 of 2008 in W.P.No.19901 of 2008)
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.P.Balasubramani
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents 4 - 84 : Mrs.G.Sridevi Chandran
W.P.NO.25894 / 2008
1 S.MUNIYANDI
2 P.ANNAMALAI
3 P.IMMANUEL
4 J. RAJENDRAN
5 K.J. KISHORE KUMAR
6 M.CHANDRASEKARAN
7 TMT. K.S. SUGANTHI
8 M.S. MOHAN RAM
9 V. SAMPATH
10 TMT. R. RADJAMANY
11 G.SRINIVASAN
12 S.ARUNACHALAM
13 R.KRISHNAMOORTHY
14 M. RAVI
15 P.ANBURAJAN
16 GO. POOPATHI
17 TMT. VASANTHI GNANASEKAR
18 A. ARPUTHAM ... PETITIONERS
Vs.
1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI - 9.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE &
PLANTATION CROPS (IN-CHARGE)
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
CHEPAUK CHENNAI-5.
4 THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL GRADUATE ASSOCIATION (TAGA)
REP. BY THE SECRETARY MR.L.SURESH
NO.45 SAIT COLONY, II STREET,
EGMORE CHENNAI-8
(R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 18/11/2008 IN MP.4/2008 IN WP.
25894/2008) ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to G.O.(Ms) No. 537 Agriculture (AA 8) Department dated 24.12.2007 and quash para 11 of the said order in so far as it directs drawal combined seniority of Agriculture Officers and Horticulture Officers and consequently direct the respondents to prepare seniority list of Horticulture Officer and Agriculture Officer separately, give promotion to the post of Assistant Director Horticulture and Assistant Director Agriculture separately, fill up the posts earmarked for the respective department as enumerated in para - 17 of the Tabular column of the said G.O.(Ms)No.537 Agriculture (AA 8) Department dated 24.12.2007.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.P.Balasubramani
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 4 : Mrs.G.Sridevi Chandran
W.P.NO.29016 / 2008
1 TAMILNADU HORTICULTURAL
OFFICERS ASSN
REP BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT G.ALAGUMALAI
148 KAVITHA ILLAM, PAVALAR NAGAR,
KOTTAR POST, NAGERCOIL.
2 N.BALAKRISHNAN
3 J.PERUMALSAMY
4 S.KALAISELVAN
5 S.P. THIYAGARAJAN
6 M.PANDI
7 K.SRINIVASAN
8 P.GUNASEKARAN
9 P.SELVARAJ
10 M. RAVICHANDRAN
11 K.MANI ... PETITIONERS
Vs.
1 STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
AGRICULTURE DEPT.
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI - 9.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
AND PLANTATION CROPS
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI - 5.
4 JAHIR C. HUSSAIN
5 N.SASIKALA
6 S.THIRUCHENTHILVASAN
7 V.GERSHAN THANGARAJ
8 R.PALANISAMY
9 RM.SIVAKUMAR
10 ELANGOVAN
11 P.MOHAN VIJAYAKUMAR
12 R.GUNASEKARAN
13 P.G. DURAIRAJ
14 M.V. KRISHNA REDDY
15 S.JAGANNATHAN
16 R.RAVI
17 K.R. SATHAPPAN
18 N. JOHN VIJU PRAKASH
19 PRADEEPKUMAR SINGH
20 S.CHINNASAMY
21 M.R.JAGANATHAN
22 A.GOMATHITHANGAM
23 S.SIVASUBRAMANIAN
24 A.ASIR KANAGARAJAN
25 S.KARUNANIDHI
26 R.GANDHI
27 D.A.BABU RAVIVARMAN
28 P.BALAKRISHNAN
29 R.CHELLADURAI
30 V.JEYARAJAN
31 K.PERIYAKARUPPAN
32 G.BASKAR RAJ
33 S.TOM P. SILAS
34 A.B. RAFIULLA
35 T.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN
36 G.MANOHARAN
37 J.EDGER KON SALVAS
38 K.WESLY JEEVANRAJ
39 D.VIJAYAKUMAR
40 V. PREMA
41 P.V. PREMKUMAR
42 U.PARAMASIVAM
43 J.MALLIKA
44 N.VELVIZHI
45 M. SHANTHI
46 R.UMARANI
47 K.SHANTHY
48 JAKKULA AKHANDARAO
49 T. TAMILMALAR
50 R.PREMA
51 A.BALA
52 B.JAYALAKSHMI
53 S.BABY PARVATHAM
54 R.RAVICHANDRAN
55 M.PONMALAR
56 S.LAKSHMI
57 K.MURALIDHARAN
58 A.ANUSUYA
59 S.LAKSHMANAN
60 AM.SHANTHI
61 N.A.M. RAJASINGH
62 K.SENTHIL KUMAR
63 SANTHI SAMINATHAN
64 PAKYALA PRATAPA RAO
65 C.KRISHNAKUMARI
66 C.AVAI MEENAKSHI
67 R.VADIVEL KUMAR
68 S.SAMUTHIRAPANDIAN
69 J.SURENDRAN JOSEPH
70 M.MADHAVAN
71 R. KRISHNAMOORTHY
72 S.RAMAMOORTHI
73 P.VADAMALAI
74 K.JEYA SELVIN INBARAJ
75 EPPAN VETTAH EPPAN
76 A.CHITHRAKALA
77 J. BAMA
78 S.SHIV SANKAR SINGH
79 C.HARAKUMAR
80 J.EASTUS SAMUEL
81 S.MAHALINGA KANNAN
82 R.PANNEERSELVAM
83 C.SUMATHI
84 A.MARIMUTHU
85 V.THAMIZHSELVI
86 B.VALLIMAIL
87 D.SUSEELA
88 T.HEMA
89 T.KAMARAJ
90 K.MURUGANANDAM
91 S.PADMINI
92 S.RAJASEKARAN
93 K.JAYARAMAN
94 R.VADIVELU
95 SIVAKUMAR SINGH
96 R.SWARNA
97 MOHAMMED ASLAM
98 C.PALANI VELAYUTHAM
99 JAYAPRAKASH MISHRA
100 H.S.SIDDA GANGAIAH
101 N.PARVATHAMA
102 DAYA SANKARLAL SRIVASTAVA ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.537 Agriculture (AA 8) Department dt. 24.12.2007 in so far as paragraph 11 as it directs to draw combined seniority list of Agricultural Officers and Horticultural Officers and the consequential combined panel drawn in G.O.Ms.No.548, Agriculture (AA1) Department dt 28.12.2007 in so far as the promotion given to the respondents 4 to 102 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to fill up the vacancies by giving promotion to the petitioners and other Horticultural Officers as Assistant Directors (Horticulture).
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.P.Balasubramani
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents 4 & 6 : Mr.J.James
W.P.NO.12025 / 2012
TAMIZHAGA THOTTAKKALAITHURAI
PATTATHARI ALUVALARGAL SANGAM
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT P. TAMIZHKALANGIAM
R-3 & 4, ALISONS COMPLEX,
17/8 SUNKURAMAN CHETTY ST,
CHENNAI 600 001. ... PETITIONER
Vs.
1 THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT FORT ST.GEORGE,
CHENNAI 9.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
EZHILAGAM,
CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 5.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
AND PLANTATION CROPS
EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK,
CHENNAI 5.
4 TAMILNADU VELANMAI PATTATHARIGAL
ONDRIYAM (REGISTRATION NO.150/96)
REP. BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT
23, 3RD MAIN ROAD, AUDCO NAGAR,
KATTUPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 056.
(R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
22.06.2012 IN M.P.NOS.3 & 3 / 2012
IN W.P.NOS.12025 & 13298 / 2012)
5 THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL GRADUATES ASSOCIATION
REP.BY ITS STATE SECRETARY
NO.45, SAIT COLONY II STREET,
EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008.
(R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
09.07.2012 IN M.P.NOS.4 & 4 / 2012
IN W.P.NOS.12025 & 13298 / 2012) ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 537 Agriculture (AA8) Department dt.24.12.2007 and quash the same in so far as the paragraph 12 and its corresponding paragraph 17 (X) in so far as they (i) stipulate a condition of 5 years from the date of the impugned G.O. for filling up by the 1st respondent the vacant technical posts viz. Horticultural Officers, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture and Additional Director of Horticulture, which being arose on retirement, promotion and transfer etc. in the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops after the issuance of the impugned G.O. and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from inducting hereafter either by way of promotion or transfer or any other mode the personnel / staff / officers of the Agriculture Department into the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops more particularly in the posts of Horticultural Officers, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture and Additional Director of Horticulture which were allotted on re-structure vide the impugned G.O.(Ms) No.537, Agriculture (AA8) Department, dated 24.12.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Silambanan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajendiran
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent - 4 : Mr.K.Duraisami
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Muthumani Duraisami
For Respondent 5 : Mr.K.Muthukumaraswamy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Jenasenan
W.P.NO.13298 / 2012
1 TAMIL NADU HORTICULTURE
OFFICERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT G.ALAGUMALAI
8/1 SUDHA AVENUE, 2ND STREET,
CHITLAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-64. ... PETITIONER
Vs.
1 THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE,
CHENNAI-9.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK,
CHENNAI-5.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
AND PLANTATION CROPS
EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK,
CHENNAI-5.
4 TAMILNADU VELANMAI PATTATHARIGAL
ONDRIYAM (REGISTRATION NO.150/96)
REP. BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT
23, 3RD MAIN ROAD, AUDCO NAGAR,
KATTUPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 056.
(R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
22.06.2012 IN M.P.NOS.3 & 3 / 2012
IN W.P.NOS.12025 & 13298 / 2012)
5 THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL GRADUATES ASSOCIATION
REP.BY ITS STATE SECRETARY
NO.45, SAIT COLONY II STREET,
EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 008.
(R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
09.07.2012 IN M.P.NOS.4 & 4 / 2012
IN W.P.NOS.12025 & 13298 / 2012) ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st Respondent in connection with the Impugned G.O.Ms.No.537, Agriculture (AA8) Department, dated 24.12.2007 and quash the same in so far as the paragraph 12 and its corresponding paragraph 17(X) in so far as they stipulate a condition of 5 years from the date of the Impugned G.O. for filling-up by the 3rd Respondent the vacant technical posts viz. Horticultural Officers, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture and Additional Director of Horticulture, which being arose on retirement, promotion and transfer etc. in the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops after the issuance of the Impugned G.O. and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from inducting hereafter either by way of promotion or transfer or any other mode the personnel / staff / officers of the Agriculture Department into the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops more particularly in the posts of Horticultural Officers, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture and Additional Director of Horticulture which were allotted on restructure vide the impugned G.O.Ms.No.537, Agriculture (AA8) Department, dated 24.12.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel forMr.S.Rajendiran
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent - 4 : Mr.K.Duraisami
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Muthumani Duraisami
For Respondent 5 : Mr.K.Muthukumaraswamy
Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Jenasenan
COMMON ORDER
The Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to restructure the Directorates of Agriculture, Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Seed Certification and Organic Certification, Agricultural Marketing and Agri- Business and also Tamil Nadu Horticulture Development Agency (TANHODA).
2.Pursuant to their policy decision, G.O.(Ms)No.537, Agriculture Department, dated 24.12.2007 was issued. The existing Three Tier System was made into Two Tier System. That is, District Level, Taluk Level and Block Level system was made into District and Block level system. The same was to provide technological assistance and subsidies to the farmers at one point. The existing staffing pattern reflected the priorities of "Green Revolution" type production oriented agriculture. The policy of the Government has shifted towards "producing for markets". The entire scenario was discussed with all the Heads of the Directorates referred to above and the Head of the Department of the four Directorates referred to above sent proposals for restructuring their Directorates. Based on the proposals, G.O.(Ms)No.537 was issued on restructure. Pursuant to the policy of restructuring, various measures were taken. All those measures that are stated in the said Government Order are not relevant, except the one relating to staff reallocation under restructure.
3.The Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.537 contains 19 paras with Annexures I V. Paras 1 to 16 gives various details relating to restructure and para 17 deals with the direction issued by the Government to implement the restructure proposals in respect of four Directorates and TANHODA. The directions are contained in paras 17(i) to 17(xiv). Paras 18 and 19 are not very much relevant. The cadre strength of technical post for the four Directorates and TANHODA are given in details in the Annexures, running to 42 pages.
4.In the restructuring of the Directorates, though reallocation of staff took place, the total strength remained the same after restructure also. There were 8691 technical staff in all the Departments put together and the said number remained constant, after restructure also.
5.The following table provides the details of the strength of various categories of technical staff before restructure, and after reallocation under restructure.
"ABSTRACT EXISTING STRENGTH Department Addl. DA Jt. DA Dy. DA Asst. DA A.O/H.O/ Dy.A.O Asst. Seed Officers Asst. Agri Officers Total Director of Agriculture 7 36 159 292 1960 (including 88 Dy. Agri Officer) 509 4050 7013 Director of Horticulture
-4 12 43 193 5 934 1191
Director of Seed Certification
-1 4 30 213
-
-248
Director of Agricultural Marketing
-
-2 13 109
-115 239
Total 7 41 177 378 2475 514 5099 8691 STAFF RE-ALLOCATION UNDER RESTRUCTURE Department Addl. DA Jt. DA Dy. DA Asst. DA A.O / H.O Dy. A.O Asst. Seed Officer Asst. Agri Officers Total Director of Agriculture 5 29 99 435 1100 337 509 2319 4833 Director of Horticulture TANHODA 1 3 33 396 405 123 5 1633 2599 1 3
-5
-
-
-
-9
Director of Seed Certification
-2 16 37 289
-
-
-344
Director of Agricultural Marketing
-4 29 14 172 52
-635 906
Total 7 41 177 887 1966* 512 514 4587 8691 Additional Requirement
-
-
-509
-509 512
-
-512
0
AO / HO requirement under restructure : 2478
* After upgradation of 509 posts as
ADA/ADH from the existing category
(2475-509=1966) : 1966
The shortfall of 512 posts is met out by Dy.A.O. : 512 "
6.The Director is the Head of the Department. The Additional Directors, Joint Directors and Deputy Directors are at the Headquarters or District level. The other categories of officers namely, Assistant Directors, Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers, Deputy Agricultural Officers / Deputy Horticultural Officers, Assistant Seed Officers, Assistant Agricultural Officers / Assistant Horticultural Officers are mainly at the Block level. The posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer, Assistant Seed Officer, Deputy Agricultural Officer, Agricultural Officer / Horticultural Officer, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director and Additional Director are the technical posts in the Departments, in ascending order, with regard to the rank.
7.The posts in the Directorate of Seed Certification and in the Directorate of Agricultural Marketing were filled up from the common cadre managed by the Director of Agriculture. The same was continued after restructure also.
8.The strength of Additional Director, Joint Director and Deputy Director remained same before restructure and also after restructure. The details of the same are given hereunder and the same also can be seen in the above tabular column.
8.1.That is, while there were 7 Additional Directors under the Director of Agriculture before restructure, 2 of them, 1 at each were allocated, to the Director of Horticulture and TANHODA and 5 were allocated to Directorate of Agriculture and the total strength remained the same.
8.2.Likewise, 36 Joint Directors of Agriculture, 4 Joint Directors of Horticulture, 1 Joint Director of Seed Corporation were there before restructure. In total, there were 41 Joint Directors before restructure. The same number was maintained after restructure.
8.3.But the number of Joint Directors under the Director of Agriculture came down from 36 to 29, the number of Joint Director under Director of Horticulture also came down from 4 to 3, while there was increase of Joint Director from 1 to 3 in the case of TANHODA and there was also increase of Joint Director from 1 to 2 under the Director of Seed Certification and 4 Joint Directors were allocated to the Director of Agricultural Marketing, after restructure. That is, in total, the number of Joint Directors after reallocation under restructure remained 41.
8.4.The same is the case in relation to Deputy Directors. There were 159 Deputy Directors under the Director of Agriculture, 12 under the Director of Horticulture, 4 under the Director of Seed Certification and 2 under the Director of Agricultural Marketing, before restructure. In total, there were 177 Deputy Directors before restructure. Reallocation was made by reducing the number of Deputy Directors under the Director of Agriculture from 159 to 99 and increasing the number of Deputy Directors under the Director of Horticulture, Director of Seed Certification and Director of Agricultural Marketing to 33, 16 and 29 respectively, from the earlier tally of 12, 4 and 2 respectively. The total number of 177 remained the same.
9.The staff strength in the category of Assistant Director was increased substantially in the reallocation under restructure. Prior to restructure, there were 378 Assistant Directors of Agriculture / Assistant Directors of Horticulture in all the Directorates put together. The same was increased to 887 for the four Directorates under restructure. Before reallocation, there were 292 Assistant Directors under the Director of Agriculture, 43 under the Director of Horticulture, 30 under the Director of Seed Certification and 13 under the Director of Agricultural Marketing. In total, there were 378 Assistant Directors.
9.1.Though there was an increase in the number of Assistant Directors under the Director of Agriculture from 292 to 435, which constitutes about 50% increase, there was manifold increase in the case of Assistant Directors under the Director of Horticulture. In fact, there was an increase of 800% in the category of Assistant Directors in the Horticulture Department. Earlier, there were 43 Assistant Directors under the Director of Horticulture and the same was increased to 396 after restructure. 5 Assistant Directors were allocated under restructure to TANHODA. The number of Assistant Directors were increased from 30 to 37 under the Director of Seed Certification and a marginal increase was made from 13 to 14 under the Director of Agricultural Marketing.
9.2.There was an additional requirement of 509 posts of Assistant Directors (887-378=509). These additional numbers were to be met by way of upgradation from Agricultural Officers / Agricultural Officers (Research) / Horticultural Officers, by following common seniority, based on the date of their regularisation in the entry level posts, that is, Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers.
9.3.These writ petitions are mainly centering around the reallocation of Assistant Directors in the Horticulture Department.
10.Before restructure, there were 2475 posts of Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers / Deputy Agricultural Officers in all the Departments, as stated in the above tabular column. Among these 2475 posts, 509 Agriculture Officers / Horticulture Officers were upgraded as Assistant Directors. Hence, this strength came down, on reallocation by upgradation, as stated above, from 2475 to 1966.
11.However, the Government Order, on restructure, states that the total requirement in the category of Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers / Deputy Agricultural Officers shall be 2478. On reallocation, the strength came down to 1966 in the case of Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers. The short fall of 512 posts shall be met from the posts of Deputy Agricultural Officers / Deputy Horticultural Officers. These 512 Deputy Agricultural Officers shall be upgraded from the existing 514 Assistant Seed Officers. The shortfall in the category of Assistant Seed Officers shall be filled up by upgrading from the feeder category of Assistant Agricultural Officers / Assistant Horticultural Officers. That is, there will be reduction of Assistant Agricultural Officers from 5099 before restructure, to 4587 (5099-4587= 512) after restructure. There was no controversy over this arena.
12.Based on G.O.(Ms)No.537, relating to restructure, the consequential Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.548, Agriculture Department, dated 28.12.2007 was issued approving the names of the Officers for inclusion in the temporary list, to the upgraded post of Assistant Director of Agriculture / Assistant Director of Horticulture, based on the common seniority and the date of regularisation at the entry level post. The list contained 509 Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers, who were upgraded by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Directors.
13.The writ petition in W.P.No.19901 of 2008 was filed by 18 Horticultural Officers questioning G.O.(Ms)No.548, Agriculture Department, dated 28.12.2007.
14.The writ petition in W.P.No.25894 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners, who filed W.P.No.19901 of 2008, seeking to quash para 11 of G.O.(Ms)No.537, Agriculture Department, dated 24.12.2007.
15.The writ petition in W.P.No.29016 of 2008 was filed by the Tamil Nadu Horticultural Officers Association and 10 of its Members seeking to quash para 11 of G.O.(Ms)No.537 and also G.O.(Ms)No.548, insofar as giving promotion to the respondents 4 to 102 therein as Assistant Directors.
16.While the aforesaid writ petitions were filed in the year 2008, in the year 2012, the writ petition in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 was filed by the Tamizhaga Thottakkalaithurai Pattathari Aluvalargal Sangam (Shortly " the Sangam") seeking to quash para 12 and the corresponding para 17(x) of G.O.(Ms)No.537, insofar as it stipulates a condition of five years from the date of the impugned Government Order, for filling up the vacant technical deployed posts of Horticultural Officers, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture and Additional Director of Horticulture, that arose due to retirement, promotion and transfer etc. in the Department of Horticulture, by the Director of Horticulture.
17.Similar prayer is made in W.P.No.13298 of 2012 by the Tamil Nadu Horticulture Officers Welfare Association (Shortly "the Association").
18.In the writ petitions that were filed in the year 2008 viz., W.P.No.19901, 25894 and 29016 of 2008, there were no interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners. However, an interim order was passed in W.P.No.13298 of 2012 on 09.05.2012 directing the respondents not to fill up any posts.
19.In these circumstances, the Tamil Nadu Velanmai Pattatharigal Ondriyam and the Tamil Nadu Government Agricultural Graduates Association got impleaded as fourth and fifth respondents in both W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012. Both of them filed miscellaneous petitions to vacate the interim order that was granted in W.P.No.13298 of 2012. The Government also filed a miscellaneous petition to vacate the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.13298 of 2012.
20.The Government also filed counter affidavits in all the writ petitions, except the writ petition in W.P.No.29016 of 2008.
21.In these circumstances, the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal after hearing both sides.
22.The common seniority of different categories, namely, Agricultural Officers and Horticultural Officers was questioned, while seeking to quash para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 in W.P.Nos.25894 and 29016 of 2008. According to them, even if common seniority of different categories are taken for upgradation, the common seniority shall be from the date of appointment to the entry level post and not from the date of regularisation. They also claimed 1/3 of 509 upgraded posts of Assistant Directors.
23.In the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012 seeking to quash para 12 and 17(x) of G.O.(Ms) No.537 are concerned, the main objection was to the fixation of five years period for filling up the deployed posts, by the Director of Horticulture, that would fall vacant, due to promotion or retirement of the deployed staff, from the Directorate of Agriculture, in the Directorate of Horticulture,
24.According to the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners, such a fixation of five years is arbitrary and there exists no nexus to the object of restructuring of staff in the Departments. According to them, once allocation of staff is made under restructure, the restructure came to end and the concerned Directorates shall be given power to fill those posts coming under their Directorates. But, para 12 of G.O.(Ms)No.537 read with para 10 keep the deployed posts in the Horticulture Department, under the control of Directorate of Agriculture, for a period of five years and the deployed posts would get permanently transferred, only after five years. Their main contention is that once reallocation under restructure took place in the Horticulture Department, any vacancy that arose due to promotion/ retirement of the deployed staff, in the Horticulture Department, could not be filled time and again on various occasions from the Directorate of Agriculture and no such power is given under G.O.(Ms) No.537. If para 12 is understood as giving such power to the Director of Agriculture, the same is not correct and in that event, para 12 read with para 17(x) shall be quashed insofar as giving such power to Director of Agriculture to fill up the deployed posts that arose in Horticulture Department due to promotion or retirement of deployed staff. Alternatively, it was submitted that para 12 read with para 17(x) shall be read down as not giving power to the Director of Agriculture to fill up the vacancies arose in deployed posts in Horticulture Department on any score. They have relied on the word "one time measure" used in para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537. They have also relied on para 17(xii) of G.O.(Ms)No.537 in support of their submission that if the deployed staff is transferred to parent Department, even on promotion, prior approval of the Government shall be obtained and such a stringent condition was imposed implying that the vacancies arose in deployed posts shall not be filled up by way of deployment again from the Directorate of Agriculture. The staff, who came under redeployment, would go to parent Department, only after five years of the issuance of the Government Order as G.O.(Ms) No.537 contemplates that the deployed staff from the Directorate of Agriculture in Horticulture Department shall exercise option either to remain in the Horticulture Department or to go back to their parent Department.
25.According to the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners, nowhere G.O.(Ms) No.537 empowers to fill the deployed vacant posts in the Directorate of Horticulture that arose due to promotion or retirement from the Directorate of Agriculture. The power vests with the Director of Horticulture after five years to fill those vacancies that arose due to promotion or retirement of deployed staff. They have relied on the following judgments in support of their contention:
(i) GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [1991 (1) SCC 189]
(ii) UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. [AIR 2003 SC 3983]
(iii) IN RE: SPECIAL REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2012 (2012 (7) MLJ 532 (SC)
(iv) ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FEDERATION VS. B.NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS [2011 (9) SCC 286]
(v) M.MUTHUSAMI VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2012 WLR 742]
(vi) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. RAM AHDAR [2008 (12) SCC 136]
(vii) M.HARA BHUPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1997 (3) SCC 561]
(viii) A.UMARANI VS. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS [2004 (7) SCC 112]
(ix) SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS [2006 (4) SCC 1]
(x) THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VS. V.RANI [2007 (15) SCC 129]
26.On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submitted that restructuring of the Directorates was the policy of the Government and therefore, the same cannot be questioned by the writ petitioners. The learned Advocate General relied on the following judgments in this regard:
(i) UNION OF INDIA VS. PUSHPA RANI AND OTHERS [2008 (9) SCC 242]
(ii) ANIL KUMAR VITTHAL SHETE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [2006 (4) MLJ 1851 (SC)]
27.The learned Advocate General submitted that counter affidavits were filed explaining the need for restructuring, taking into account the various aspects and particularly, to help the farmers and also the developments that took place in Horticultural area. He further emphasised that the policy decision of the Government cannot be questioned by the petitioners, who are the employees in Horticulture Department, particularly when the restructure G.O.(Ms)No.537 increased the staff strength in Horticulture Department.
28.The learned Advocate General made a statement that separate special rules for various posts in Horticulture Department are at the advanced stage of active consideration and the same would be issued shortly.
29.The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the impleaded fourth and fifth respondents in W.P.No.12025 and 13298 of 2012 submitted that the deployed staff of Agriculture Department to the Horticulture Department, Seed Certification and Agricultural Marketing are ensured the same seniority and promotional prospects in Agriculture Department and they pointed out para 10 of G.O.(Ms)No.537 in this regard. As far as the deployed posts are concerned, the Director of Agriculture has power to fill the vacancies that would arise therein upto five years. Only after five years from the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.537, permanent transfer of those deployed posts to the Directorate of Horticulture, would take place and the Director of Horticulture would have power to deal with those posts only thereafter. The learned Senior counsels also submitted that the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012 are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone since they came to this Court after 4 = years of the issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.537, while five years period was prescribed in G.O.(Ms) No.537. They relied on the following judgments in support of their contention:
(i) UNION OF INDIA VS. PUSHPA RANI AND OTHERS [2008 (9) SCC 242]
(ii) DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [2009 (4) SCC 753]
30.The learned Senior Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Government Agricultural Graduates Association submitted that the affidavit in both the writ petitions viz. W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012 are identically the same and the prayer in the writ petitions and the prayer in the interim applications are one and the same. The learned counsel on record in both the writ petitions are one and the same. When the petitioner in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 was not able to get interim order, suppressing about the filing of W.P.No.12025 of 2012, the writ petition in W.P.No.13298 of 2012 was filed during vacation and interim order was obtained on 09.05.2012, thereby preventing the Agriculture Department to fill up the vacancies particularly in the deployed post of Assistant Directors in the Horticulture Department. The learned Senior Counsel sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
31.I have considered the submissions made on either side.
32.Before dealing with the Restructure G.O.(Ms)No.537, it is necessary to take into account the various developments that took place in the Agriculture Department, particularly with reference to the various Special Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and other Government Orders relevant to this case.
33.Agriculture Department had several wings. There were Agricultural Engineering Wing, Horticultural Wing, Seed Development Wing, Agricultural Marketing Wing, Agricultural Research Wing etc., in the Agriculture Department. The teaching post and some of the Research posts along with Research Stations were also under the Agriculture Department, before the formation of Agricultural University in 1971. Thus, various activities came under the purview of the Agriculture Department.
34.The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service was issued in G.O.(Ms) No.1474, Agriculture Department, dated 18.05.1970 under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by redesignating the Special Rules for the Madras Agricultural Service. The said Special Rules relate to State service. The said Special Rules dealt with various posts of the various Wings of the Agriculture Department.
35.As far as this case is concerned, two posts namely, Horticulturists and Assistant Horticulturists and some other posts in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service are relevant. The post of Horticulturists comes under Category 7 of Class V of the aforesaid Special Rules. The method of appointment to the said post is by way of promotion from the Category 7 of Class IX post. The post of Assistant Horticulturists comes under Category 7 of Class IX of the said rules. The method of appointment to this post is by way of direct recruitment.
36.The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service was issued in G.O.(Ms) No.1760, Agriculture Department, dated 10.06.1970 under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Various posts in Category 1 in Class I of the aforesaid Subordinate Service Rules was called as Upper Subordinates and the same has some relevance. B.Sc., (Agri.) was originally prescribed as the qualification for these Upper Subordinates. Subsequently, the posts of upper subordinates were redesignated as Deputy Agricultural Officers.
37.Horticultural activities increased manifold. Cultivation of fruits and vegetables acquired importance and the market potential also increased for them. That led to the formation of separate Horticulture Department in 1979 vide G.O.(Ms) No.1423, Agriculture Department, dated 17.07.1979. The Joint Director of Agriculture (Commercial Crops), Horticulturists, District Agricultural Officers, Deputy Agricultural Officers, Assistant Horticulturists etc., were transferred to the newly formed Horticulture and Plantation Crops Department, in G.O.(Ms) No.1423.
38.Likewise, Seed Certification and Agricultural Marketing Business Department came under separate Directorates. Even now, the posts in the Directorate of Seed Certification and Organic Certification and the Directorate of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business continue to be filled up from the common cadre managed by the Director of Agriculture, as per para 12 of G.O.(Ms) No.537.
39.After the formation of separate Directorate for Horticulture, on the recommendations of the Director of Horticulture, the following posts transferred to Horticulture Department were redesignated as follows by G.O.(Ms) No.1063, Agriculture Department, dated 29.05.1980.
Posts transferred to Horticulture Department Redesignated post Joint Director of Agriculture (Commercial Crops) Joint Director of Horticulture Horticulturists Deputy Director of Horticulture Assistant Horticulturists and District Agricultural Officers Assistant Director of Horticulture Deputy Agricultural Officers (Horticulture) Horticulture Officer Deputy Agricultural Officers (Extension) Horticulture Officer
40.In the said Government Order, the Director of Horticulture was requested to send draft Special Rules / adhoc rules governing the aforesaid redesignated posts to constitute separate service. Separate Service Rules have not yet been issued so far by the Government, for Horticulture Department.
41.In the Agriculture Department, the post of District Agricultural Officer was redesignated as Assistant Director of Agriculture by G.O.(Ms) No.1583, Agriculture Department, dated 11.08.1980.
42.The Government of Tamil Nadu also issued G.O.(Ms) No.111, Agriculture Department, dated 21.01.1981 constituting Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service, based on the proposals of the Director of Agriculture. G.O.(Ms) No.111 also states that the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer held by Degree holders have been redesignated as Agricultural Officers. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service was issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supersession of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service, insofar as the posts that are included in the separately constituted service. This service consists of the following classes of posts namely, Class I Joint Director of Agriculture (Extension) Class II Deputy Director of Agriculture (Extension) Class III Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) Class IV Agricultural Officer (Extension)
43.The qualification prescribed for the Agricultural Officers under the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service is a Bachelor Degree in Agriculture. The method of appointment to the post of Agricultural Officer under the said Special Rules is by way of direct recruitment.
44.The method of appointment to Class III posts under the said Special Rules, namely, Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) is that the same have to be filled up both by way of direct recruitment and by way of promotion.
45.We are not concerned with the direct recruitment of Assistant Director of Agriculture and different qualification is fixed for direct recruitment. As far as promotion is concerned, Agricultural Officers, who have served for a period of not less than three years are eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. As stated above, the qualification for the post of Agricultural Officers is B.Sc., (Agri.).
46.The Deputy Director of Agriculture under Class II posts has to be filled solely by promotion among the holders of the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. An Assistant Director, who has served for a minimum period of three years is eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Director.
47.The Joint Director of Agriculture is also by way of promotion from the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and that one should have served as Deputy Director of Agriculture for a period of not less than three years.
48.As stated above, while separate service, namely, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service was constituted by G.O.(Ms) No.111, bringing within its fold some posts in Agriculture Department, the posts of Deputy Director of Horticulture and Assistant Director of Horticulture continued to be governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service.
49.Though the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.1063 redesignating the post in the Horticulture Department, the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service was not amended accordingly.
50.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms) No.750, Agriculture Department, dated 18.04.1983 bringing necessary amendment to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service by redesignating Horticulturists as Deputy Director of Horticulture and the Assistant Horticulturists as Assistant Director of Horticulture wherever the words occur. Further, at the time of issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.750, the Special Rules provided B.Sc., (Agriculture) and M.Sc., (Agriculture) with specialisation in Horticulture as the qualification required for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture. The same was amended by G.O.(Ms) No.750 by making M.Sc., (Horticulture) is also alternatively an educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture. Before G.O.(Ms) No.750, the qualification for Horticulturists as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service as issued in G.O.(Ms) No.1474 was B.Sc., (Agriculture). In G.O.(Ms) No.750, an amendment was made to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service by prescribing B.Sc., (Horticulture) also as alternate qualification for the post of Horticulturists. That is, for the post of Deputy Director of Horticulture, one should have either B.Sc., (Agriculture) or B.Sc., (Horticulture). As far as the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture, one should have B.Sc., (Agriculture) and M.Sc., (Agriculture) with specialisation Horticulture or M.Sc., (Horticulture).
51.As stated above, the Deputy Agricultural Officers with B.Sc., (Agriculture) degree qualification were redesignated as Agricultural Officers and were classified as Class IV posts in G.O.(Ms) No.111 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service. Apart from Deputy Agricultural Officers having B.Sc., (Agriculture) Degree, the District Agricultural Officers were also redesignated as Agricultural Officers and they were also classified as Class IV posts under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service in G.O.(Ms) No.111. That is, the qualification for the post of Agricultural Officer is B.Sc., (Agriculture) as per the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service.
52.The post of Deputy Agricultural Officer (Horticultural) was redesignated as Horticultural Officer as per G.O.(Ms) No.1063, Agriculture Department, dated 29.05.1980. But, the Special Rules governing the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer (Horticulture) was not amended accordingly redesignating the post. Amendment was made in 1984 by way of G.O.(Ms) No.1714. The post of Deputy Agricultural Officer (Horticulture) comes under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service.
53.Initially, the Class I posts in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service were called upper subordinates. Later, it was redesignated as Deputy Agricultural Officers. The Deputy Agricultural Officer with B.Sc., (Agriculture) Degree became Agricultural Officers coming under Class IV posts in Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service, as mentioned in G.O.(Ms)No.111.
54.Before issuing G.O.(Ms) No.111, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms) No.454, Agriculture Department, dated 08.03.1977 prescribing B.Sc., (Horticulture) as alternative qualification for Deputy Agricultural Officers. Now, the Deputy Agricultural Officers (Horticulture) were redesignated as Horticultural Officers as per G.O.(Ms)No.1063 and are serving in Horticulture Department.
55.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms) No.1714, Agriculture Department, dated 05.09.1984 amending the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service by inserting Horticultural Officers as Category I-A post in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service and the educational qualification for the post of Horticulture Officer was fixed as B.Sc., (Horticulture). The method of appointment to the post of Horticulture Officer is by way of direct recruitment.
56.Later, the Government of Tamil Nadu also issued adhoc rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by issuing G.O.(Ms) No.2332, Agriculture Department, dated 23.12.1987. As per this Government Order, the General and Special Rules applicable to the holders of the permanent posts in Class-II of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service shall apply to the holders of the post of Joint Director of Horticulture in the Horticulture Department and the post shall constitute a distinct category in Class II of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service. As per this adhoc Special Rules, the appointment to the post of Joint Director of Horticulture has to be made by way of promotion from the post of Deputy Director of Horticulture in Category 7 of Class V of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service. The qualification prescribed for Joint Director is B.Sc., (Agriculture) or B.Sc., (Horticulture).
57.The aforesaid details make it clear that the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director and Joint Director of Horticulture are governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service Rules. The Horticultural Officer is governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules.
58.The above details make it clear that as per the concerned Special Rules, the following qualifications and method of appointment are prescribed for the post of and Agricultural Officer, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Joint Director of Agriculture, in the Agriculture Department and also for the post of Horticultural Officer, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture and Joint Director of Horticulture in the Horticulture Department:-
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT Sl.No. Name of the post Qualification prescribed Method of appointment 1 Agricultural Officer B.Sc., (Agriculture) Direct recruitment 2 Assistant Director of Horticulture B.Sc., (Agriculture) for promotion from the post of Agricultural Officer Direct recruitment or promotion 3 Deputy Director of Agriculture B.Sc., (Agriculture) Promotion 4 Joint Director of Agriculture B.Sc., (Agriculture) Promotion HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT Sl.No. Name of the post Qualification prescribed Method of appointment 1 Horticultural Officers B.Sc., (Horticulture) Direct recruitment 2 Assistant Director of Horticulture B.Sc., (Agriculture) and M.Sc., (Agriculture) with specialisation Horticulture or M.Sc., (Horticulture) Direct recruitment 3 Deputy Director of Horticulture B.Sc., (Agriculture) or B.Sc., (Horticulture) Promotion 4 Joint Director of Horticulture B.Sc., (Agriculture) or B.Sc., (Horticulture) Promotion
59.Now, let us discuss some of the relevant clauses of G.O.(Ms) No.537 that are necessary to decide the issue.
60.Paras 10, 11, 12, 17(x) and 17(xii) of G.O.(Ms) No.537 are extracted hereunder:
"10)The two wings of Agriculture viz. Extension and Research (Chemistry) are currently functioning separately under separate service rules. Rotating of staff between the two wings will enhance the technical and managerial capacity of the staff. Moreover, the qualification for both the cadres is same (i.e.) B.Sc. (Agri.). Therefore, these two wings will be merged so that in future, there will be only one cadre for managing both extension and research functions. Provisions will be made to ensure that the merger does not affect the seniority, promotional prospects and service conditions of each cadre. Similarly, the staff going to Horticulture, Seeds Certification and Marketing from Agriculture will continue to enjoy the same seniority and promotional prospects they are presently getting in Agriculture Department.
11)The existing staff strength in the category of Assistant Director of Agriculture (ADA) / Assistant Director of Horticulture (ADH) in all the Directorates put together is 378. It is increased to 887 for the four Directorates under restructuring. The additional requirement of 509 posts of Assistant Directors (887-378=509) will be met by upgrading equal number of posts from the existing 2475 posts of Agricultural Officers / Agricultural Officer (Research) / Horticultural Officers. The above posts will be filled up by promotion from the cadres of Agricultural Officer / Horticultural Officer / Agricultural Officer (Research) taken together and by following common seniority based on the date of their regularisation in the entry level posts as a one time measure.
12)With regard to the staff deployed from the Directorate of Agriculture to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops, any post falling vacant by way of promotion or retirement of the deployed staff in the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops, after expiry of 5 years from the date of issue of this Order, the posts shall stand permanently transferred to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops and shall be filled up by the Director of Horticulture & Plantation Crops by duly following the Service Rules of the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops. In order to maintain fairness and justice and to avoid friction among the staff in awarding promotion and other service benefits, after expiry of 5 years, an opportunity shall be provided to the staff deployed to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops to exercise their option for permanent absorption in the Department of Horticulture & Plantation Crops. The posts in the Directorates of Seed Certification and Organic Certification / Agricultural Marketing & Agri Business shall continue to be filled up from the common cadre managed by the Director of Agriculture.
17(x). Under restructure, with regard to the posts and staff deployed from the Directorate of Agriculture to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops, any post falling vacant by way of promotion or retirement of the deployed staff in the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops, after permanently transferred to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops and shall be filled up by the Director of Horticulture & Plantation Crops by duly following the Service Rules of the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops. In order to maintain fairness and justice and to avoid friction among the staff in awarding promotion and other service benefits, after expiry of 5 years, an opportunity shall be provided to the staff deployed to the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops to exercise their option for permanent absorption in the Directorate of Horticulture & Plantation Crops. The posts in the Directorates of Seed Certification and Organic Certification and Agricultural Marketing & Agri Business shall continue to be filled up from the common cadre managed by the Director of Agriculture.
17(xii). The staff re-deployed to other departments under restructure shall not be transferred without prior approval of Government. But, whenever vacancies arise the posts shall be filled up duly following the rules in force."
61.Para 12 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 that has suffered severe attack from the side of the petitioners provides that the Director of Horticulture shall fill the vacant deployed posts that would arise due to promotion or retirement of the deployed staff in the Directorate of Horticulture, only after the expiry of five years from the date of the issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.537. According to the petitioners, once reallocation under restructure took place, there was no need for five years period.
62.At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract para 17(ii) and 17(iii) of G.O.(Ms) No.537 also, which read as follows:
"17(ii). The existing posts of Additional Director / Joint Director / Deputy Director / Assistant Director / Agricultural Officer / Horticultural Officer / Deputy Agricultural Officer / Assistant Seed Officer and Assistant Agricultural Officer / Assistant Horticultural Officer among the four Directorates and Tamil Nadu Horticulture Development Agency (TANHODA) are reallocated as below:
"ABSTRACT EXISTING STRENGTH Department Addl. DA Jt. DA Dy. DA Asst. DA A.O/H.O/ Dy.A.O Asst. Seed Officers Asst. Agri Officers Total Director of Agriculture 7 36 159 292 1960 (including 88 Dy. Agri Officer) 509 4050 7013 Director of Horticulture
-4 12 43 193 5 934 1191
Director of Seed Certification
-1 4 30 213
-
-248
Director of Agricultural Marketing
-
-2 13 109
-115 239
Total 7 41 177 378 2475 514 5099 8691 STAFF RE-ALLOCATION UNDER RESTRUCTURE Department Addl. DA Jt. DA Dy. DA Asst. DA A.O / H.O Dy. A.O Asst. Seed Officer Asst. Agri Officers Total Director of Agriculture 5 29 99 435 1100 337 509 2319 4833 Director of Horticulture TANHODA 1 3 33 396 405 123 5 1633 2599 1 3
-5
-
-
-
-9
Director of Seed Certification
-2 16 37 289
-
-
-344
Director of Agricultural Marketing
-4 29 14 172 52
-635 906
Total 7 41 177 887 1966* 512 514 4587 8691 Additional Requirement
-
-
-509
-509 512
-
-512
0
AO / HO requirement under restructure : 2478
* After upgradation of 509 posts as
ADA/ADH from the existing category
(2475-509=1966) : 1966
The shortfall of 512 posts is met out by Dy.A.O. : 512 "
17(iii). Under restructure the cadre strength of technical posts for the four Directorates and also Tamil Nadu Horticultural Development Agency (TANHODA) are given in Annexure I, Annexure II, Annexure III and Annexure IV to this order. The details of Government Orders in which the posts were sanctioned are given in Annexure V to this order."
63.Annexures I to V mentioned in para 17(iii) are not enclosed with the impugned G.O.(Ms) No.537. However, those annexures are enclosed along with G.O.(Ms) No.537 in the typed set filed by the Government. Those annexures run to 42 pages. The cadre strength of each of the technical post for all the four Directorates and the details of the Government Orders in which the posts were sanctioned were given in these annexures. The annexures are in detail and the reallocation of staff under restructure was the process of deployment as stated in para 17 of G.O.(Ms) No.537.
64.The controversy arose when 509 Agricultural Officers/Horticultural Officers were upgraded as Assistant Directors. Earlier, there were totally 378 Assistant Directors. On restructure, it became 887 Assistant Directors and the additional requirement of 509 (887-378=509) was met by upgradation of Agricultural Officers/Horticultural Officers. The details are found in the above table. When upgradation took place based on the common seniority and the date of regularisation in the entry level post as per G.O.(Ms) No.537, Agriculture Department, dated 24.12.2007, writ petitions were filed in the year 2008, questioning the same. The attack during the year 2008 was para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 that is the basis for issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.548, based on common seniority. The upgradation list of Agricultural Officer / Horticultural Officer for Assistant Director of Agriculture is based on the common seniority and also on the date of regularisation in the entry level post. Hence, writ petitions filed in the year 2008 sought to quash para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 and also to quash G.O.(Ms) No.548.
65.The case of the Horticultural Officers is that 1/3rd of 509 upgraded posts shall be given to them. They relied on the words "equal number of posts" in para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537. Secondly, their case is that there cannot be common seniority of different categories namely, Agricultural Officers and Horticultural Officers. Thirdly, their case is that the date of appointment shall be the criteria and not the date of regularisation.
66.In my view, none of these submissions are well founded. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the word "equal number" appearing in para 11 to claim 1/3rd of 509 posts is only misreading para 11. The word "equal number" that appears in para 11 is referable to 509 additional posts of Assistant Directors required under restructure. The additional requirement of 509 posts (887-378=509) has to be met from 2475 posts of Agricultural Officers / Agricultural Officers (Research) / Horticultural Officers. Agricultural Officers (Research) and Agricultural Officers both belong to Agriculture Department. Further, 509 posts is not devisible by 3. Therefore, they cannot ask for 1/3rd of 509 posts. I am not in agreement with the theory of 1/3rd post of 509 Assistant Directors for Horticultural Officers as claimed by the petitioners.
67.The second argument that the common seniority for upgradation would not arise as the posts are belonging to different services has no merit, since the upgradation is based on the restructure and the same is the policy of the Government. In fact, in view of restructure, the Horticulture Department is the ultimate beneficiary and more posts have come to the Horticulture Department. On the one hand, the petitioners cannot say that they welcome the additional posts of Assistant Directors that come to their Department due to the policy of restructure and on the other hand, they cannot say that the other portion of policy of the Government is not acceptable to them. While preparing the common seniority list, the seniority as assigned in Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is taken as the basis. In my view, I do not find any infirmity in the same. The Horticultural Officers who were initially not recruited regularly by way of selection cannot ask to count their service from the date of appointment for the purpose of seniority, though they were subsequently regularised in service. The subsequent regularisation from the date of appointment is for other purposes and not for counting seniority. The reliance placed by the respondent Department and the Government on Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules also supports the case of the Department. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 and also G.O.(Ms) No.548. Hence, the writ petitions filed in the year 2008 viz., W.P.Nos.19901, 25894 and 29016 of 2008 are liable to be dismissed.
68.The next is the issue relating to interpretation of para 12 and para 17(x) of G.O.(Ms) No.537 placed on by both the parties. In my view, the plain reading of G.O.(Ms) No.537 does not empower the Director of Agriculture to fill up the vacant posts that would arise due to the promotion / retirement of the deployed staff in the Directorate of Horticulture. In fact, the purpose of the Restructure Scheme also would get defeated, if the vacancies arose in the deployed post due to promotion / retirement of deployed staff were filled from the Directorate of Agriculture, time and again. Para 10 safeguards the interest of the deployed staff by ensuring them that they will continue to enjoy the same seniority and promotional prospects while they are serving in the deployed post in the Horticulture Department or Seed Certification or Agricultural Marketing. But para 12 of its plain reading makes it clear that the vacant deployed post along with the deployed posts would get permanently transferred to Director of Horticulture after expiry of five years from the date of issuance of the said Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.537 and the Director of Horticulture is the concerned authority to fill up those posts on permanent transfer being made to the Department. During the period of five years, whenever vacancy arises, the Director of Agriculture cannot fill up those posts and G.O.(Ms) No.537 does not state so explicitly. Implicitly also such an interpretation is not plausible. Neither the learned Advocate General nor the counsel for the impleaded respondents have pointed out any particular para in G.O.(Ms)No.537, which empowers the Director of Agriculture to fill up the vacancies in the deployed posts, again and again.
69.In fact, the controversy did not arise for more than four years. The petitioner Sangam filed reply affidavit dated 26.08.2012 in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 stating that so far 5 number of Additional Directors of Agriculture, 7 number of Joint Directors of Agriculture, 25 numbers of Deputy Director of Agriculture and 4 numbers of Assistant Directors of Agriculture were deployed to the Horticulture Department.
70.The following passage in this regard from para 2 of the reply affidavit referred to above is extracted hereunder:
"........ As such, so far, 5 numbers of Additional Directors of Agriculture, 7 numbers of Joint Directors of Agriculture, 25 numbers of Deputy Directors of Agriculture and 4 numbers of Assistant Directors of Agriculture were deployed to the Horticulture Department in the respective cadre posts of Addl. Director of Horticulture, Joint Director of Horticulture, Deputy Director of Horticulture and Assistant Director of Horticulture....."
71.The aforesaid details make it clear that for the past more than 4 = years, less number of posts in each categories were filled when there were vacancies in those deployed posts. In fact, if five years period was not fixed and the period was fixed as 2 or 3 years in G.O.(Ms)No.537, then these numbers could have been much smaller or could have been nil. However, it was for the Government to decide about the period of deployment, after which option has to be exercised to remain in the deployed department or to go back to parent department.
72.This Court cannot sit on appeal over the policy decision of the Government and can come with some other number of years instead of five years. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsels for the impleaded respondents, the fixation of 5 years period for the deployment is the policy decision of the Government and this Court cannot interfere with the same.
73.But the Restructure Scheme nowhere contemplates that the Director of Agriculture can go on filling the vacant deployed posts again and again, whenever the vacancy arises due to promotion / retirement. I am fortified by the word "one time measure" used at the end of para 11 of G.O.(Ms) No.537, to come to the conclusion that the Director of Agriculture cannot seek to fill the vacancies arose in the deployed posts in the Horticulture Department from his Directorate.
74.Further, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012, even when the deployed staff are transferred to parent department due to promotion in the parent department, the same shall be done with the prior approval of the Government. Furthermore, the details as given in the reply affidavit also makes it clear that there were very small number of vacancies that were filled and the relevant passage in the reply affidavit of the petitioner was extracted above. Though I am of the view that those vacancies in the deployed posts could not have been filled by the Director of Agriculture, since those posts were filled long back and the deployed persons are in occupation of the posts, I am not inclined to disturb them and they could also been given opportunity after expiry of five years as to whether they would like to remain in the Horticulture Department or to go back to their parent Department, as per G.O.(Ms)No.537.
75.The reliance placed on by the learned Senior Counsels for the respondent Sangam and Association is that since the seniority and promotional prospects were protected under para 10, and the vacant deployed post and other deployed posts are to be transferred only after five years, the Director of Agriculture has power to fill the vacancies in the deployed posts. I am not in agreement with their submission. The vacancies that could arise due to promotion / retirement would be filled up by Director of Horticulture after expiry of five years is the categorical statement made in para 12 of G.O.(Ms)No.537 and that is also the scheme of restructure.
76.As I have stated, the reallocation of staff under restructure is a one time measure. The details of the same are also stated in Annexures I V. Therefore, whenever vacancies arose in the deployed posts due to promotion or retirement, that could be left to the Director of Horticulture to fill the same after five years, when those posts are permanently transferred. The Government anticipated that such a contingency would be less and it is also the fact that not so many vacancies arose in various posts and the details of the filling up of deployed posts in small number was given in the reply affidavit of petitioner as extracted above. The details as stated in the reply affidavit of the petitioner Sangam in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 that was extracted above, also confirms the same.
77.At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that after restructure, notification dated 23.04.2008 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission calling for application for filling up of 520 posts of Agricultural Officers in the Agriculture Department and another notification dated 13.08.2012 for filling 460 posts of Agricultural Officers in the Agriculture Department and the Agriculture Department filled up the post of Agricultural Officers by way of direct recruitment. There could be no quarrel over the same. It is for the Agriculture Department to fill up the vacancies that arose in their Department. But the purpose of the restructure scheme is not to post the Agricultural Officers, to fill the vacancies in the Horticulture Department, on promotion as Assistant Director of Agriculture as Assistant Director of Horticulture by way of deployment in the vacancies that were caused due to the promotion of deployed Assistant Directors in the Horticulture Department. As per the details furnished in the reply affidavit, only four such Assistant Directors were deployed after the restructure. In restructure, in total 509 Assistant Directors were upgraded and posted in Horticulture / Agriculture Department. Out of these 509 upgraded posts, barring 28 upgraded Assistant Directors from Horticultural Officers, at the time of upgradation by way of restructure, 325 Assistant Directors who were upgraded from Agricultural Officers were deployed to Horticulture Department. That is, after restructure, the Assistant Director of Horticulture was increased to 396 from the earlier 43. Thus, 353 upgraded Agricultural / Horticultural Officers among 509 Assistant Directors were posted to Horticulture Department. Earlier 43 Assistant Directors and 28 out of 509 comes to 71 Assistant Directors. 396-71=325 Assistant Directors from 509 were deployed from Agriculture Department as Assistant Director of Horticulture. The balance were posted in Agriculture Department.
78.But if some of those 325 deployed persons are promoted or retired, the vacancies cannot be filled by bringing in Assistant Director of Agriculture by way of redeployment. Upto August 2012, only 4 such Assistant Directors came after the restructure was over. But there was an attempt to bring by way of a mass deployment of 178 Assistant Directors of Agriculture and G.O.(Ms) No.22, Agriculture Department, dated 27.01.2012 was issued relating to the panel of promotion of 378 Assistant Director of Agriculture. 200 were given promotion as Assistant Directors and posted in Agriculture Department and the allegation of the petitioners is that the remaining 178 were attempted to be brought by way of deployment in the Horticulture Department. The following passage from the reply affidavit of the petitioner Sangam in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:
"..... Now only, as a first time, a mass deployment with technical personnel, i.e., about 150 Assistant Directors of Agriculture is attempted to be made in the Horticulture Department in the next promotional avenue (i.e. Assistant Director Horticulture) from the entry level feeder category (i.e. Horticultural Officers). In fact, the 1st Respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.22, Agriculture (AA1) Department, dated 27.01.2012 releasing an approved promotional panel for the posts of Assistant Director of Agriculture comprising 378 feeder categories in the level of Agriculture Officer. Out of these 378 Agriculture Officers about 200 Agriculture Officers have been given promotion to the post of Asst. Director of Agriculture in the Agriculture Department itself and the remaining A.Os (about 178) are proposed to be deployed in the Horticulture Department in the posts of Assistant Director of Horticulture. Hence, having no other go, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of the above Writ Petition."
79.As stated above, since there was no such mass deployment took place till that time and only few deployments took place and the details are extracted above from the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner Sangam in W.P.No.12025 of 2012, there was no occasion to question such mass deployment by filing writ petitions questioning paras 12 and 17(x) of G.O.(Ms)No.537. When there was an attempt to bring in by way of mass redeployment, the petitioner Sangam filed W.P.No.12025 of 2012. Of course, they did not get interim order. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsels for the respondents that there was laches on the part of the petitioners has no basis.
80.Again a different petitioner moved vacation Court on 09.05.2012 and got interim order. I am of the view that the respondents cannot fill up the deployed post in this fashion. In fact, the following passage of the counter affidavit of the Government in W.P.No.19901 of 2008 supports my conclusion:
"20............. It is also relevant to point out that for this 509 upgraded posts 471 posts of Agricultural Officer (Extn.), 10 posts of Agricultural Officer (Research) and 28 posts of Horticulture Officer (totalling 509) have been abolished. Under these circumstance Horticulture Department is entitled only to 28 upgraded posts of Assistant Director of Horticulture. The cadre strength of Assistant Director of Horticulture in Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops prior to the process was 43. Now since 28 posts of Horticulture Officers have been upgraded as Assistant Director of Horticulture, the cadre strength of Assistant Director of Horticulture is only 71. However in the process of restructure of the Departments of Agriculture / Marketing / Seed Certification / Horticulture, Horticulture Department has been allocated 401 Assistant Director level post. These 401 Assistant Director level posts comprise of the cadre strength of Assistant Director of Horticulture (i.e. 71) plus 330 posts of Assistant Director of Horticulture for which candidates from Agriculture have been positioned on service lent basis. These 330 posts belong to Agriculture and the petitioners herein have no right to claim these posts. It is also pointed out that the Agriculture candidates positioned in these 330 posts of Assistant Director of Horticulture have a lien only in Agriculture Department and can have their next promotion only in Department of Agriculture. Further, if any of the 330 posts in which Agriculture candidates are positioned fall vacant by way of promotion or retirement of the deployed staff, these posts shall stand automatically transferred to Horticulture Department. Thus it may be seen that Horticulture Department has been sufficiently strengthened, and besides the staff welfare has also been addressed. After the restructure process of the Departments of Agriculture / Horticulture / Director of Agricultural Marketing / Director of Seed Certification, the excess staff in Agriculture Department has been evenly distributed according to the respective requirement of each Department; stagnation in promotion has been removed; besides benefiting the farming community............."
81.The Government, took the stand in the year 2008 that the vacancies that would arise in deployed posts of Assistant Directors would not be filled from the Assistant Directors of Agriculture in the Agriculture Department and that the deployment was a one time measure under the restructure. But, contrary to the stand that was taken in the year 2008, the Government took a different stand in the counter affidavits dated 05.09.2012 filed in W.P.Nos.12025 and 13298 of 2012 that the Director of Agriculture would fill the vacancies in the deployed posts that would arise due to promotion or retirement, till 5 years. Para 8 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"8........... the contention of the petitioner that because the officers sent to Horticulture Department are paid salary from Horticulture Department, the Department of Agriculture does not have lien, right and interest over the posts after reallotment is not correct. As long as the conditions stipulated and commitment made in para 12 and 10 of the said G.O. holds good, the Department of Agriculture can fill-up the posts, and there is no legal impediment in doing so."
82.In view of the interim order, the mass deployment of Assistant Director of Agriculture to Horticulture Department does not take place.
83.Yet another reason is that I have traced the history of the development that took place in the Agriculture Department and the formation of the Horticulture Department and the Special Rules governing various posts in both the Departments. The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service is B.Sc., (Agriculture) for the persons promoted from the post of Agricultural Officer, while the qualification for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture is M.Sc., (Agriculture) with specialisation in Horticulture or M.Sc., (Horticulture). Even the upgradation made from the cadre of Horticultural Officers may not possess the qualification of M.Sc., (Horticulture), as the qualification prescribed for Horticultural Officer under the Special Rules is B.Sc., (Horticulture). In fact, when G.O.(Ms) No.537 provided for upgradation of 509 posts of Agricultural Officers / Horticultural Officers as Assistant Directors by way of restructure, the Government of Tamil Nadu should have relaxed the qualification prescribed under the Special Rules by exercising its power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, since the upgradation is done pursuant to restructuring of Departments by the Government and hence, the Government is perfectly justified in exercising its power under Rule 48. Therefore, I am of the view that the Government shall pass necessary orders giving relaxation for the required qualification. At the time of restructure, it was to adjust the excess staff in Agriculture Department by way of deployment to Horticulture Department, as a one time measure and the excess staff in Agriculture Department was thus adjusted and thereafter, deployment cannot be used as a method to bring in un-qualified persons contrary to the Special Rules. The Restructure Scheme is also not for the same.
84.The averment made in the counter affidavit of the Government placing reliance on Rule 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service Rules that the Rule provides for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture from Horticultural Officers besides direct recruitment is not correct. This Rules provides for promotion for the teaching posts, namely, Assistant Research Officers including Lecturers that come under category 7 of Class IX of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service. Before the Agricultural University was established in 1971, teaching and research posts came under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service and after formation of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in 1971, the teaching posts were transferred to the University. The Lecturers in Horticulture was in the cadre of Assistant Director of Horticulture and promotion could be made to the said teaching post under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Service. But Assistant Director of Horticulture is not the teaching posts. Hence, the reliance placed by the Tamil Nadu Government in Rule 2(e) is not correct. Rule 2(e) cannot be attracted and the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture shall be filled by way of direct recruitment.
85.Further, the classic example that is given by the petitioner in W.P.No.12025 of 2012 also indicates that the filling up of deployed vacancies is illegal and arbitrary.
86.One Mr.Muthusamy was working as an Assistant Director of Agriculture as on 29.10.2007. He was deployed as Assistant Director of Horticulture due to restructure in December 2007. In view of para 10 of G.O.(Ms) No.537, he is entitled to have promotion in Agriculture Department based on his seniority. Accordingly, he got promotion as Deputy Director of Agriculture. Thereafter, he was again redeployed as Deputy Director of Horticulture. He got promotion as Joint Director of Agriculture on 26.07.2010. Thereafter, he was deployed as Joint Director of Horticulture. He was again promoted to the post of Additional Director of Agriculture and was deployed to Horticulture Department and posted as Additional Director of Horticulture on 31.12.2011. But the senior person Mr.Mohan, who was working as Joint Director of Horticulture when Mr.Muthusamy was working as Assistant Director over reached him. Mr.Mohan was Joint Director of Horticulture in 2007, when Mr.Muthusamy was deployed to Horticulture Department as Assistant Director. This is not the purpose of restructure scheme. In fact, though there was no special rules for appointment of Additional Director of Horticulture, para 17(vi) of G.O.(Ms) No.537 makes it clear that the posts of Additional Director shall be filled up from the cadre of Joint Director of Agriculture and Horticulture.
"17(vi). The six posts of Additional Director of Agriculture downgraded as Joint Director of Agriculture in the Government Order third read above, now stand restored. These posts of Additional Directors shall be filled up from the cadre of Joint Directors of Agriculture and Horticulture."
But, this was given a go bye. Since there was no special rules for Additional Director, para 17(vi) was incorporated in G.O.(Ms) No.537. As far as the other posts are concerned, the special rules govern the various posts in the Department of Agriculture as well as in the Department of Horticulture and the same was discussed in detail above. But, the Government curiously states in the counter affidavit that for the post of Additional Director of Horticulture, there was no special rules or adhoc rules governing the post was framed and therefore, the Joint Director of Horticulture was not given promotion to the post of Additional Director. The qualification and the method of appointment prescribed under the Special Rules were not followed in the case of other posts as discussed above and I have directed the Government to issue necessary relaxation exercising its power under Rule 48 of the General Rules, whenever actions taken under restructure were not in consonance with the Special Rules. But in the case of Additional Director of Horticulture, the Government acted differently and contrary to clause 17(vi) of G.O.(Ms)No.537.
87.Further, none of the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners is relating to the policy of the Government on restructure of Departments. Those judgments do not hold that the Court can interfere even in the matter of policy of the Government relating to restructure of Departments. Hence, those judgments are not of any use.
88.Para 37 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. PUSHPA RANI AND OTHERS [2008 (9) SCC 242] relied on by the learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsels for the impleaded respondents is extracted hereunder:
"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."
89.Para 15 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [2009 (4) SCC 753] relied on by the learned Senior Counsels for the impleaded respondents is extracted hereunder:
"15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions."
90.The judgment of the Supreme Court in ANIL KUMAR VITTHAL SHETE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [2006 (4) MLJ 1851 (SC)] relied on by the learned Advocate General is relating to restructuring of Judicial cadres and amalgamation of multiple cadres in the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat placed Small Causes Court Judges enbloc in the Civil Judges (Senior Division) above others. Those Small Causes Court Judges had grievance that their chances of promotion were affected and they should be brought under District Judges cadre. The same was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that the decision of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts cannot be described as arbitrary and unlawful, when as a result of merger of cadre chances of promotion of some of the officers were adversely affected and that cannot be a ground for setting aside merger. Hence, as per the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government on the restructuring of the Department and I am not inclined to quash paras 12 and 17(x) of G.O.(Ms) No.537. In fact, quashing is not necessary since I held that those paras do not empower filling up of vacancies in the deployed posts due to promotion / retirement, again and again from the Directorate of Agriculture to the Directorate of Horticulture, for deployment in Horticulture Department.
91.The deployed staff in the Horticulture Department shall exercise their option within one month after the expiry of the period of five years as contemplated in para 12 of G.O.(Ms) No.537 as to whether they want to remain in the deployed Department or to go back to their parent Department and based on their option, necessary orders shall be passed by the competent authority.
92.In these circumstances, I am not inclined to quash paras 12 and 17(x) of G.O.(Ms) No.537, since I have come to the conclusion that these paras do not empower the Director of Agriculture to fill in the vacant deployed post during the five years period. However, I make it clear that the persons who were already posted in the deployed posts as disclosed in the reply affidavit of the petitioners referred to above, shall not be disturbed. The respondents are directed not to fill any deployed posts by bringing in new persons from Agriculture Department to Horticulture Department, including the Assistant Directors of Agriculture, who are empanelled in G.O.(Ms)No.22, Agriculture Department, dated 22.01.2012.
93.The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19 / 12 / 2012 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Note : Issue order copy on 20.12.2012 TK To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI 600 009.
2 DIRETOR OF HORTIULRUE & PLANTATION CORPS (IN -CHARGE) CHEPAUK, CHENNAI -5 3 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CHEPUAK, CHENNAI 5.
4 THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 9.
5 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 5.
6 THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE AND PLANTATION CROPS EZHILAGAM, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 5.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK PRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P.NOS.19901, 25894 AND 29016 OF 2008 AND 12025 AND 13298 OF 2012 19 / 12 / 2012