Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Tmt.D.Suseela on 13 July, 2021
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
3.Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005 ... Appellants in all Writ Appeals
vs
Tmt.D.Suseela ... Respondent in W.A. No.2008
H.S.Siddagangaiah ... Respondent in W.A. No.2009
P.Premavathy ... Respondent in W.A. No.2010
****
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the common order dated 27.04.2017 made in W.P. Nos.1174
to 1176 of 2017.
****
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1 of 9
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
in all WAs State Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.V.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel
in all WAs for Mr.D.Jayasingh
JUDGMENT
(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
These intra-court appeals are directed against the common
order of the learned single Judge dated 27.04.2017 made in W.P.
Nos.1174 to 1176 of 2017. The appellants herein are the
respondents before the writ court and the respondents herein are the
writ petitioners.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were selected
through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the Agricultural
Department as Agricultural Officers. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.537,
Agricultural Department, dated 24.12.2007, the Government has
restructured the Departments of Agriculture and Horticulture.
Subsequently, the Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops,
Chepauk, namely the third respondent, promoted the respondents
herein and posted them as Assistant Directors of Horticulture.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
3. While they were working in the Horticulture Department,
they were required to exercise their option for retention in the
Horticulture Department or resume to their parent department.
Accordingly, they have submitted their representation dated
10.01.2013 exercising their option to remain in the Horticulture
Department with the protection of seniority as per the TNPSC. The
Commissioner of Agriculture, namely the second respondent, vide
proceedings dated 28.06.2016 repatriated 18 officers including the
writ petitioners, who were working as Assistant Directors of
Horticulture as Assistant Directors of Agriculture. On receipt of such
proceedings, the petitioners have submitted another representation
dated 29.06.2016 through proper channel requesting the appellants
herein to retain them in the Department of Horticulture and
Plantation Crops. However, the third appellant vide proceedings
dated 14.07.2016 relieved all the above said 18 officers except the
respondents herein. Thereafter, the third respondent has passed the
proceedings in GES1/22730/2014 dated 05.01.2017, transferring the
writ petitioners to the Agricultural Department as Assistant Directors
of Agriculture stating that they have opted to go back to the
Agricultural Department, but they have not at all given their
willingness to go back to their parent department. The said
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
proceedings were under challenge before the writ court.
4. The learned single Judge, upon hearing the parties and after
perusing the records, set aside the impugned order repatriating the
respondents herein/writ petitioners to the parent department.
Challenging the said common order, these writ appeals have been
filed.
5. Heard Mr.R.Neelakantan, learned State Government Counsel,
representing the appellants and Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned senior counsel
appearing for Mr.D.Jayasingh, learned counsel on record for the
appellants and perused the materials available in the form of typed
set of papers.
6. It is an admitted fact that the respondents herein have given
their option to continue in the Horticulture Department. Further, the
form issued by the appellants herein clearly mentions that the
seniority ranking given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
should be protected as per the terms and conditions stipulated in
G.O. Ms. No.537 Agriculture (AAE) Department dated 24.12.2007 and
in accordance with the judgment of this court dated 19.12.2012
made in W.P. Nos.19901, 25894, 29016 of 2008 and W.P. Nos.12025
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
and 13298 of 2012. When the respondents herein have filled in the
option form served by the appellants herein, it is not correct to state
by the appellants that the respondents have exercised their option to
continue in Horticulture Department without a condition that their
ranking assigned by the TNPSC should be protected.
7. The learned single Judge, referred to the Judgment of this
court in S.Muniyandi & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
reported in 2013 (1) MLJ 919. In the said judgment in paragraph
67, it has been clarified that while preparing the common seniority
list, the seniority as assigned by the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission is taken as the basis and such course was also accepted
by this Court. This is for the reason that Rule 35(a) of the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules also supports the case of
the department. On this score, this Court, in the said judgment, has
held that there is no infirmity in paragraph-11 of G.O.Ms.No.537
dated 24.12.2007 and also in G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 28.12.2007.
Finally, paragraphs 12 and 17 of G.O.Ms.No.537 having been upheld,
the petitioners, who were deployed to Horticulture Department, after
exercising their option to continue in the Horticulture Department,
are to enjoy the seniority assigned by the TNPSC. As such, we do
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
not find any defect or infirmity in the order of the learned single
Judge.
8. From the typed set of papers filed, it is noticed that after
receipt of the order of the writ court, the third appellant herein has
sent a final list to the Agricultural Production Commissioner and
Principal Secretary to Government, for fixing seniority among the
Assistant Director of Horticulture originally appointed in Horticulture
Department and Assistant Director of Agriculture, who were deployed
from Agriculture Department and opted to remain in Horticulture
Department fixing the seniority. In the said list the name of the writ
petitioners, namely Ms.D.Suseela, first respondent herein finds place
in Sl.No.86, name of Mr.H.S.Siddagangaiah, second respondent
herein finds place in Sl. No.88 and the name of Ms.P.Premavathi,
finds a place in Sl. No.73 of the said list. Against their names, there
was a remark, which reads thus:
"Assistant Director of Agriculture who have
opted conditional option and since opted
conditional option they have been posted back to
Agriculture Department vide Director of
Agriculture Proc. No.GES2/83872/2013,
Dt.28.06.2016 & 16.11.2016 and the Proc. now set
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
aside the matter is sub-judice. Further course of
action on court judgment is being processed."
9. The said list was returned to the third respondent herein by
the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to
the Government requesting him to finalise the list at the earliest and
send the panel proposal to the Government along with proforma and
other records.
10. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our
knowledge by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that
Tmt.D.Suseela, respondent in W.A. No.2008 of 2018 retired on
30.09.2018 and Thiru.H.S.Siddagangaiah, respondent in W.A.
No.2009 of 2018 retired from service on 30.06.2018.
Tmt.P.Premavathi, respondent in W.A. No.2010 of 2018 was
promoted as Deputy Director pending disposal of the writ appeal and
she is due to retire on 31.05.2022.
11. In such circumstances of the matter, we do not find any
defect or infirmity in the common order of the learned single Judge
and the same deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, the same is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
confirmed.
12. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. However, no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
13.07.2021
Asr
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Agriculture
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
3.Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A. Nos.2008 to 2010 of 2018 and
C.M.P. Nos.15926 to 15930 of 2018
13.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
