Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioners contentions were these. First, the petitioner is appointed to a post or transferred to a post which is not validly created. The post of Officer on Special Duty is said to be not a post carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules,. 1954. Second, under rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 no member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III unless the State Government concerned in respect of posts under its control or the Cen- tral Government in respect of posts under its control, as the case may be, make a declaration that the said Post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule. It is, therefore, said that the Petitioner who is a cadre post holder, viz., holding the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-seheduled Post without a declaration that the nonscheduled post is equal in status and responsibilities to a scheduled post. Third, the petitioner is posted to an office which is inferior in status and office to that of the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the order is a hostile discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16. Fourth, the creation of the post as well as the; appointment and transfer of the petitioner to the post is malafide.

The posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty are equal in status and responsibility. The services of cadre officers are utilised in different posts of equal status and responsibility because of. exigencies of administration and employing the best available talent in the suitable post. There is no hostile discrimination in transfer from one post to another when the posts are of equal status and responsibility. The petitioner alleged that the creation of the posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty as well as the appointment of the petitioner to the posts was malafide. Broadly stated, the petitioner's allegations were that the Chief Minister acted malafide in removing the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary The petitioner alleged that in the discharge of his duty lie was fearless and he suggested action against persons who were friendly to the Chief Minister. It is- said that the Chief Minister therefore wreaked his vengeance on the petitioner. One of the instances alleged by the petitioner which gave rise to the anger of the Chief Minister relates to irregularities in the, accounts of Tanjavur Cooperative Marketing Federation, V. S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar was the head of th e Federation. Mudaliar was a powerful and influential person. He was a close associate of the Chief Minister. The petitioner put up a note to the Chief Minister that the case should be handed over to the police and the persons responsible should be hauled up. The petitioner alleged that the Minister for Co-operation called the petitioner and asked him to modify the note. The modification suggested was to leave out any reference to Mudaliar and to omit the suggestion for handing over the matter to the police.' Another allegation concerning Mudaliar is that he was flouting orders of the Government and health authorities and allowing effluents from the distillery at Tirucharapalli without proper treatment into the river and thereby causing hazards. The petitioner wrote a note asking for deterrent action and launching prosecution against Mudaliar. The petitioner alleged that the Chief Minister expressed his annoyance.

On 1st April, 1970, the Government of India proposed that in view of the fact that the responsibilities of Chief Secretary to State Government had multiplied and become complex to such an extent that they would no longer be regarded as less onerous than those of Secretary to the Government of India, the post of Chief' Secretary to State Government should be equated to the post of Secretary to the Government of India in respect of Pay and invited the comments of various State Governments on this proposal. The State of Tamil Nadu conveyed its assent to the proposal but suggested that since the posts of Chief Secretary and First Member, Board of Revenue in the State were equal in status and interchangeable, both these posts should be upgraded to that-of Secretary to the Government of India. The Government of India did not accede to the request of the State of Tamil Nadu in so far as the post of First Member, Board of Revenue was concerned,. but in regard to the post of Chief Secretary, amended Sch. III to the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rides, 1954 by a notification dated 31st August, 1970 raising the pay of Chief Secretary from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month so as to bring him on par with Secretary to the Government of India.: The rank and status of the post of Chief Secretary was thus enhanced and that post was raised above every other cadre post in the State including the post of First Member, Board of Revenue. The general elections to the Parliament and the State Legislature were held in Tamil Nadu in the first week of March 1971. The results of the poll were declared on 11th March, 1971 and the DMK party under the leadership of the second respondent retained its majority in the State Legislature and formed the new Government with the second respondent as the Chief Minister. According to the petitioner, there were several matters in which he had the misfortune to incur the displeasure and wrath of the second respondent during the period prior to the elections as also at the time of the elections whilst acting in discharge( of his duties as- Chief Secretary, and the second respondent, therefore, on being returned to power, decided to remove him from the post of Chief Secretary. With that end in view the second respondent announced at a Press Conference held by him at mid-night on 6th April, 1971 that the petitioner was transferred, as Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission. There was State Planning Commission in existence on that date though it appears that the proposal to set it up had been under consideration of the Government for Some time. The petitioner was also not given any inkling of the proposed appointment and he came to learn about it for the first time on reading the newspapers in the morning of 7th April 1971. The formal order in this. connection was issued by the State Government on 7th April, 1971 and by this order the State Government accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year with effect from the date of appointment and appointed the petitioner to that post providing that be-shall be entitled to the same rank and emoluments as- admissible to the post of Chief Secretary' The petitioner obviously felt that he was being denig rated and he, therefore, did not join this post and went on leave from 18th April, 1971 and the leave was renewed by him from time to me upto 5th June, 1972 The State planning Commission was in the meantime constituted on 25th May, 1971 and since the petitioner was on leave, an order dated 19th August,' 1971 was issued by the State Government- directing, in modification of the earlier adder dated 7th April, 1971, that the post of Deputy Chairman should be deemed to have been sanctioned for a period of one Year from 13th April, 1971 and that Raja Ram, who was First Member, Board of Revenue, should be placed in charge of that post until further orders. The post of Deputy Chairman having been created for a period of one Year only, came to an end on 13th April, 1972 and it was not thereafter continued' until 6th June, 1972 when it was again revived on return of the petitioner from leave. The State Government passed an order dated 6th

Now, here the post of Chief Secretary was admittedly a selection post and after careful examination of the merits of the senior most eleven officers of the Tamil Nadu Cadre of the Indian Administrative 'Service, the second respondent selected the petitioner for the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner worked as Chief Secretary from 14th November, 1969 up to 6th April, 1971 and. evidently during this period he acquitted himself creditably. It was not the case of either 'of the respondents that the petitioner was not found equal to the task ,or that his work was not satisfactory. In fact the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the first respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner discharged the duties of his office efficiently and to the satisfaction of every one concerned. Yet the petitioner was transferred first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special Duty and in his place Sabanayagam, who was admittedly junior to him, was not only promoted but also confirmed. The result of confirmation of Sabanayagam as Chief Secretary was that the petitioner, though senior and proved competent, was permanently excluded from the post of Chief Secretary. This clearly shows, contended the petitioner, that his transfer first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special-Duty was not on account of administrative reasons but solely to displace him from the key post of Chief Secretary. That perhaps might have been legally and constitutionary unobjectionable, if the post of Deputy Chairuian and ,Officer on Special Duty were of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary, but the argument of the petitioner was that neither of these two posts could be regarded as of equal status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary because the post of Chief Secretary is always a unique and unrivalled post in the State administration. The transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special Duty coupled with the promotion and confirmation ,of Sabanayagam in the post of Chief Secretary was, therefore, clearly arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16. This contention, plausible though it may seem, cannot be accepted by us, because there is no adequate material placed before us to Sustain it. The premise on which this contention is founded is that the posts of Deputy Chairman and ,Officer on Special Duty were not of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary, but we cannot say on the material on record that the validity of the premise has been established by the petitioner. So far as the post 'of Deputy Chairman is concerned the petitioner himself accepted that post as being of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary and did not raise objection against it and we need not, therefore, say anything more about it. The only question is as to the post of Officer on Special Duty. We think that this post has not been satisfactorily established by the petitioner to be inferior in' status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary. This of-course does not mean, and we are not prepared to go as far as the learned Chief Justice in asserting positively that post was equal in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary. The fact that sales tax accounts for a very large segment of the revenues of the State and it runs into about 120 crores of rupees does not necessarily make the post of Officer on Special Duty equal in status and responsibility to that of the Chief Secretary. What has to be seen for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties, attached to the two posts. Merely giving the salary of one post to the other does not make for equivalence. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the thesis that the post of Officer on Special duty was equal in status and responsi- bility to the post of Chief.Secretary as claimed by the respondents. We entertain serious doubts about it. But equally it is not possible for us to hold it established on the material on record that this post was inferior in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary, though prima facie it does appear to be so. We cannot, therefore, say that the petitioner was arbitrarily or unfairly treated or that equality was denied to him when he was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary and in his place Sabanayagam, his junior, was promoted and confirmed. The challenge based on Arts. 14 and 16 must therefore fail. We may now turn to the ground of challenge based on mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner set out in the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path, of the second respondent and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising acts and nothings and contended that the second. respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary. The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of maladministration and the charge levelled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course of his duties obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these acts of maladministration, that the second respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same time deflating him 'that the second respondent transferred him from the post of Chief Secretary. The transfer of the peti- tioner was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly invalid.