Madras High Court
R.Devadoss vs The Secretary To Government on 1 July, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1551
W.A.No.202 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.202 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.6080 of 2017
1.R.Devadoss
2.M.Reeda
3.G.Gopoojana
4.K.Ravichandran .. Appellants
vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Public Libraries
No.737/1, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
No.12A, Vigilmear Street,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
4.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
1/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
W.A.No.202 of 2017
Public Office Road (Opp.Court)
Velipalayam, Nagapattinam
5.The District Library Officer
District Library Officer,
No.735, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
6.The District Library Officer (IC),
Cherarajan Salai,
Hasthampatty, Salem 7.
7.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
District Central Library Building
Masjeeth Road, Sivagangai District,
Pin 630 561.
8.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
1234, Periyakadaiveethi,
Coimbatore – 1.
9.C.Kalidas
10.P.Krishnaveni
11.S.Yasoda
12.M.Ramachandran
13.Madaiyan P
14.M.Dhanalakshmi
15.C.R.Ravindran
16.M.Karthieyan
17.The Tamil Nadu Public Library Department
Employees Association (C&D),
No.737, LLA Building, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002
Rep. By its State President,
Mr.M.Rajesh Kumar
18.Mrs.M.Arulkesari
2/47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
W.A.No.202 of 2017
19.Mrs.R.Vasanthamalliga
20.Mrs.S.Lalitha
21.Alaguvel .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order
dated 19.01.2017 made in W.P.No.20475 of 2012.
For Appellants : Ms.Vaigai, Senior Counsel
For Ms.M.N.Sumathy
For Respondents : Mr.Ramanlaal
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.U.M.Ravichandran,
Special Government Advocate
For R1 to R8
Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel
For Mr.Jayamalan
For R17
Notice dispensed with for R18 to R21
Vide C/o dated 04.01.2023
No appearance for R9 to R16
JUDGMENT
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J
This appeal is filed by four out of eight petitioners who had
approached the Writ Court. The plea in the Writ Petition was for a
declaration to the effect that proceedings of the Director of Public
Libraries/R2 (in short ‘R2’) dated 10.02.2011 be quashed on the ground
that it is contrary to the principles of natural justice, legitimate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
expectation, social justice and Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Services Rules (in short ‘Rules’).
2. A consequential direction was sought to the respondents to
promote the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 24.07.2006
placing them in their appropriate slots above their juniors with continuity
of service and consequential benefits. The array of parties as per the Writ
Petition and the Writ Appeal is identical and hence the array as per Writ
Appeal is used.
3. The case of the appellants is that the appellants had completed
certificate courses in Library Science and joined as Grade III Librarians
through the District Employment Office. The date and place of joining,
dates and place of approval and promotion to Grade II Librarian are as
below:
GRADE III
S.N Name Date of Joining Date of GRADE-II
o. & Place Transfer &
Place
1 R.Devadoss 06.06.1984- 03.07.1996- 29.06.2017
Cuddalore Trichy promotion and
Transfer
06.08.1998- Cuddalore to
Trichy to Sirkazhi,
Cuddalore Nagai Dist,
2 M.Reeda 06.06.1984- 14.05.1992- 01.07.2003
Cuddalore Cuddalore to Chennai
Chennai
3 G.Gopujana 21.06.1987 - 21.12.1994 – 12.06.2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Pudukottai Chennai kanchipuram
and
01.07.2010-
Transfer
Kanchipuram
to Chennai
Stock
verification
Officer
4 K.Ravichandran 10.06.1991 – 10.01.1994 – 04.02.2017
Trichy Erode
17.06.1997 –
Erode to
Coimbatore
4. As on date all four appellants have retired from service on
30.06.2017, 04.02.2016 (Voluntary Retirement), 30.04.2020 and
30.06.2024 respectively. The appellants were under the control of the
Local Library Authority (LLA) till 31.03.1982. Their services were
provincialised with effect from 01.04.1982 by issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.1735, Education Department dated 11.12.1989. By that G.O.
single unit system in the Public Library Department was implemented in
the State of Tamil Nadu.
5. The appellants emphasise that Grade I, II and III Librarians are
Class I Officers whose appointing authority is the Chairman, LLA. The
appellants hold either a Bachelors or Masters degree in Library Sciences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
which is far more than the minimum qualification for Grade III
Librarians.
6. The issue raised in the Writ Petition is alleged discrimination as
against Librarians in Grade III cadre, since State wide seniority was
being implemented for other cadres, being Grade I and II, whereas
District wise seniority was being implemented for Grade III Librarians
vide G.O.Ms.1336, Education Department dated 07.07.1981.
7. The appellants rely on the State wide seniority list that was
prepared in the year 1990 and published on 15.03.1990, on the basis of
date of appointment and date of joining of duty of all employees which
included Grade III Librarians working in various Districts as well.
According to them, promotions had also been made based on the
aforesaid 1989 seniority list.
8. There were some litigation that had been initiated by various
cadres of disgruntled employees and orders passed by this Court as well
as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on which, G.O.Ms.No.60,
School Education (K2) Department was passed on 27.04.2006 (in short
‘adhoc rules’). A seniority list was made in accordance with the Rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
and as per the directions of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, being
W.P.No.24947 of 2007 and batch dated 08.04.2009.
9. To be noted that, that order has attained finality and no appeal
was filed by the authorities as against the same. The aforesaid State wide
seniority list, based on the directions issued in the aforesaid Writ
Petitions and post drafting of the Adhoc rules dated 27.04.2006, is dated
22.12.2010 and the names of the petitioners were included therein based
on the date of their being borne into service.
10. According to the appellants, objections had been filed by
certain aggrieved employees on 10.02.2011 objecting to the fixation of
seniority on the basis that the transfers which the appellants had been
granted, were at their instance. Hence, the seniority of those employees,
transferred on voluntary basis, should be fixed only at the end of the
seniority list prevalent in that District.
11. Acceding to the objections, proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.14283/A1/2010-3 dated 10.02.2011 came to be issued fixing
the seniority of the appellants at the end of the seniority in the transferred
District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
12. Countering the aforesaid objections, the appellants had also
filed objections relying on the 2006 Adhoc rules and contending that
since the Rules had been framed, the fixation of seniority is to be on the
basis of those Rules which provide that seniority is to be reckoned on the
basis of date of joining of service and not any other date.
13. A Writ Petition had been filed challenging seniority list dated
10.02.2011, wherein, the appellants, also rely on Rule 35(b) of the Rules.
The Writ Petition was defended by the respondents primarily relying on
the position that the single unit system that had been adopted for
maintaining common seniority list, commenced only from the level of
Grade II Librarians in the office of the Director of Public Libraries,
Madras and in the office of the LLA.
14. The respondents denied that State wide seniority was being
implemented for Grade III Librarians. They further rely on
G.O.Ms.No.1336, Education Department dated 07.07.1981, which made
it clear that where employees of one LLA were transferred to another
LLA on request, the transferred personnel would be placed junior-most
in the new LLA as the transfer was at their instance and cannot impinge
on the seniority of the employees in the transferred District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
15. The Writ Court upon consideration of the rival contentions
rejected the Writ Petition confirming the stand of the respondents that the
implementation of the State wide single unit system was only on and
from Grade II level Librarians.
16. Reference was made to the Adhoc rules whether the
appointment for post of Grade III Librarians was district level only.
Thus, on a combined reading of the Government Orders, the learned
Judge held that District Seniority was being maintained for the purpose
of Grade III Librarians and where transferred on request, it is the date of
joining in the transferred post that would have to be taken into account
for determining seniority.
17. The Writ Court also held that various anomalies that exist in
the fixation of seniority inter se Librarians were ironed out in the framing
of the Adhoc rules. The learned Judge noted that there was some
collateral damage in that, post framing of the Adhoc rules, some juniors
had been reverted from the post held by them paving for the seniors to
hold the post as found appropriate by the Rules.
18. This incident was, according to the Writ Court, a normal
incidence of implementation of the Adhoc rules, and hence, the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
declined interference stating that it would further unsettle the settled
procedural norms for fixation of seniority and consequential conferment
of promotions. It is as against that order that four of the Writ Petitioners
are before us.
19. Learned Senior Counsel has reiterated the submissions made
before the Writ Court and painstakingly taken us through the trajectory
of the matter and its long history. She would rely on the fact that Adhoc
rules had been brought into force only to implement common seniority.
She would thus urge that there is no merit whatsoever in keeping out one
tier of hierarchy, i.e., Grade III Librarians out of the State unit system..
She would rely on Rules 15B and 40 of the Rules which, according to
her, support the stand of the respondents. Reliance has been placed on
the following decisions:
1. Subarata Majumdar and another v State of West Bengal and others1
2. N.Manigandan and others v The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its
Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department and
others2
20. Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General for his
part would maintain that there could be no intervention in the formation
of cadre at the District levels. An affidavit dated 06.02.2025 has been
1 1990 (Supp) SCC 757
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
filed by the Secretary to Government, Education Department/R1
confirming that there is a bifurcation in the operation of Department of
Libraries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
21. Grade III Librarians which are entry level posts are appointed
by LLA at the District level only. They are the feeder category for Grade
II Librarians and above. It is however true that all Grades of Librarians,
Grade I, II and III are Class I officers. He would also draw attention to
one document that has not hitherto been placed before any Court, in this
litigation, being proceedings in MS.No.769/Education/K2 dated
06.06.1990 from the Secretary to Government, Education Department to
the Director of Public Libraries constituting amendment to
G.O.Ms.No.1735, Education Department dated 11.12.1989.
22. The amendment substitutes clause (i) in the existing clause (i)
of G.O.Ms.No.1735 and clarifies that the common seniority list to be
maintained at State level for postings, transfers, promotions etc. of all
categories of staff ‘from the level of Assistants in the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service and from the level of Grade II Librarians in the
office of the Director of Public Libraries, Madras and in the offices of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
all Local Library Authorities in the State’ as compared with clause (i) as
it stood in the original Government Order.
23. As the above document has not been produced or relied upon
by the Department thus far, the appellants would urge that the same be
eschewed.
24. Learned AAG has cited the following decisions:
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, and another v A.Arumainathan1
2. K.P.Sudhakaran and another v State of Kerala and others2
25. Learned counsel for R17, the Tamil Nadu Public Library
Department Employees Association (C&D), supports the impugned order
and his submissions align with the submissions of the State. Specifically,
he relies upon Rules to state that transfer on request, as opposed to
transfer for administrative reasons, always has the consequence of the
candidate being placed at the end of the list of employees at the
transferred location. He cites the following decisions:
1. K.P.Sudhakaran and another v State of Kerala and others3
2. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and others v Farid Sattar4
3.Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v V.M.Joseph5
4.Union of India and others v C.N.Ponnappan6
2 (2006) 5 SCC 386
3 (2006) 5 SCC 386
4 (2000) 4 SCC 13
5 (1998) 5 SCC 305
6 (1996) 1 SCC 524
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
5.Alphonsa Theodore v Union of India and others1
6.Indra Sawhney and others v Union of India and others2
7.SK.Nausad Rahman and others v Union of India and others3
8.Joyachan M.Sebastian v Director General and others4
26. Additionally, the appellants seek parity with one M.P.Karl
Marx, who had been transferred from Thiruvarur to Thanjavur on request
as Librarian Grade III. When so transferred, his seniority was fixed based
on date of joining as Librarian Grade III at Thiruvarur. Necessary
documents had been produced by the appellants in this regard.
27.We have heard the detailed submissions of Ms.Vaigai, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.M.N.Sumathy, learned counsel on
record for the appellants, Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government
Advocate for R1 to R8 and Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel appearing
for Mr.Jayamalan, learned counsel on record for R17, and perused the
material papers and records.
28. The Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act was enacted in 1948, and
provides for the Department of Public Libraries that originally comprised
three units i) the Directorate of Public Libraries, ii) Connemara Public
1 2010 SCC Online Mad 3710 : W.P.No.27113 of 2007 dated 05.07.2010
2 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
3 (2022) 12 SCC 1
4 (1996) 10 SCC 291
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Library and iii) Local Library Authorities. The staff in category (i) and
(ii) were designated as Government servants since inception. However,
the staff of the LLAs were attached to that respective LLA alone and
functioned as a separate unit in the District for the purposes of their
appointments, promotion, seniority and other service benefits.
29. G.O.Ms.No.1336, Education Department dated 07.07.1981 was
issued by the Director of Public Libraries containing certain proposals in
regard to the procedure to be followed when employees of LLA were
transferred from one LLA to another. Those proposals were accepted by
the Government and accordingly, when employees of one LLA were
transferred to another at request, the last drawn pay would follow them in
the transferred post and those employees were to be placed as
junior-most in the transferred unit.
30. On the heels of the aforesaid directive, came G.O.Ms.No.820,
Department of Education, Science & Technology dated 03.05.1982, as
per which, the request of the LLAs to provincialise their services
received the consideration of the Government. While accepting the
request for provincialisation, the set up of the LLA was retained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
31. The proposal put forth before them and the order passed are
extracted below:
‘GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
ABSTRACT
Public Libraries – Local Library Authorities –
Provincialisation Of The Services of The Employees – Orders
– Issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY
G.O.Ms.No.820
Dated:3rd May 1982
Chithirai 20, Thunthubi Thiruvalluvar,
Aandu 2013.
Read:
From the Director of Public Libraries, Letter
No.22302/B/81 dated: 16.10.1981 and
29.01.1982.
ORDER:
The request of the employees of the Local Library
Authorities to provincialise their services and to declare them
as Government Servants has been receiving the attention of
the Government for the past several years. The Library
Reorganisation Committee constituted by the Government to
suggest measure to improve the library movement in the State
and the service conditions of the employees of the Local
Library Authorities, recommended among others, that the
services of the employees may be provincialised. The
Government examined the recommendation and decided that
the services of the staff of Local Library Authorities need not
be provincialised, but that the concessions enjoyed by the
Government servants might be extended to them.
Accordingly, almost all the concessions enjoyed by the
Government servants have been extended to the staff of the
Local Library Authorities. Still numerous requests to
provincialise the service of the employees of the Local
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Library Authorities, have been received by Government from
the various service Associations of the employees. This
request was also pressed in the District Library Officers
Conference held in August 1981. The Estimates committee for
1980-82 has observed that an expeditious decision should be
taken on the proposals to make the employees of the Local
Library Authorities as Government Servants and to
implement the decision. The Director of Public Libraries has
submitted proposals to Government for the provincialisation
of the employees of the Local Library Authorities.
2.The Government have examined the proposals of the
Director of Public Libraries carefully and have decided to
provincialised the services of the employees of the L.L.A’s
without disturbing their (Local Library Authorities) existing
set up. The Government accordingly direct that, pending
amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act 1948 the
services of the staff of the Local Library Authorities be
provincialised with effect from 01.04.1982. The Local
Library Authorities will, however, continue to function as at
present and the collection of Library Cess to sustain them
will also continue.
3.The entire expenditure on the staff of the Local
Library Authorities which are financially sound, will be met
initially by the Government and shall be subsequently
recouped from the funds of the L.L.A’s as it done in the case
District Library Officers. The entire matching grant will be
adjusted against the staff expenditure and the short fall if any
will be recouped from the Local Library Authorities from the
Library Cess collected in respect of the L.L.A’s which are not
financially sound (deficit Local Library Authorities) the
entire expenditure on the staff will be met by the Government.
In their case, because the Government could be meeting the
entire expenditure on staff initially the payment of matching
grant to the deficit Local Library Authorities by Government
will cease.
4.The expenditure is debitable under the following
head of account viz.
“278 Art and Culture AF Public Libraries 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Non Plan AH Charges on account of Tamil
Nadu Public Libraries Act 1948 01 Salaries
– 278 A AFAH 0001”
5.Necessary funds will be provided in the Revised
Estimate for 1982-83 for implementing these orders. The
Director of Public Libraries is requested to submit proposals
in this regard to the Government in the Finance Department
at the appropriate time.
6.The Director of Public Libraries is also requested to
submit necessary proposals to amend the Tamil Nadu Public
Libraries Act, 1948 and the rules there under.
7.This order issues with the concurrence of the
Finance Department vide its U.O.No.1319/Fs/P/82 dated
28.04.1982.’
32. The impact of G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1982 is restricted to
the expenditure incurred on the LLA staff and this is in line with the
understanding of the term ‘provincialisation’, which means the takeover
of the liabilities for payment of salaries including all allowances.
33. Thus G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1982 must be understood to
mean that the liability for emoluments payable to all employees under the
Directorate of Public Libraries was taken over by the State but there was
no change in their hierarchy or structure. Thus, all benefits as admissible
to Government servants are being enjoyed by these persons as well.
34. This is made clear in paragraph 2, where the request for
provincialisation has been accepted though ‘without disturbing their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
(Local Library Authorities) existing set up’. It was only vide
G.O.Ms.No.1735 dated 11.12.1989 that the next move was undertaken,
to streamline the Library movement in the State.
35. Taking note of all earlier Government Orders including
G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1982, the Government considered the
request of the Department of Public Libraries for further streamlining of
the Department including integration as a single unit.
36. The proposal put forth before the Government is as follows:
‘GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
ABSTRACT
Public Libraries – Staff of Library Department – Directorate
of Public Libraries and Local Library Authorities - Orders
Issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.1735 Dated 11.12.89
Read again:
1.G.O.Ms.No.1408, Edn dt.25.7.80.
2.G.O.Ms.No.820, EST, dt.3.5.82
3.G.O.Ms.No.1216 Edn, dt.12.8.84.
4.Govt.Lr.No.5080/K1/89-7, Edn dt.22.7.89.
5.Govt.Lr.No.86664/K1/89-2, Edn, Dt.20.9.89
Read also:
From the Director of Public Libraries lr
No.19663/A1/98, dt.29.11.88, 3.3.89, 16.5.89, 14.6.89 and
18.8.89.
ORDER:
The Public Libraries Department, of the state consists
the following three units:
i) The Directorate of Public Libraries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
ii) Connemara Public Library and
iii) Eighteen Local Library Authorities
2.The staff of the directorate of Public Libraries and
Connemara Public Library are already Government
servants from the beginning itself. The services of the
employees of Local Library Authorities have been
provincialised with effect from 1.4.82 in G.O.Ms.No.820,
EST, dt.3.5.82 and all benefits admissible to Government
servants are being enjoyed by these personnel.
3.Each Local Library Authority continue to function
as a separate unit for the purpose of Seniority and
promotion to all categories of staff and no Inter-
challengeability of staff among the aforesaid three units
exists. Certain norms exists for the appointment of staff in
four categories i.e. A,B,C,D. The staff are not, however,
transferable from one Local Library Authority to another
except by mutual request with prior permission of Director
of Public Libraries. The Ministerial staff of the Director of
Public Libraries and Connemara Public Library have
hitherto function as a single unit.
4.In order to reorient and revitalize the department
and with a view to provide adequate promotional
opportunities the Director of Public Libraries has in his
letter read above, proposed the introduction of a single unit
system. The Accountant General’s Man Power Audit has
also stress the need for the Implementation of one unit
system for the entire department. The Director of Public
Libraries had recommended that in order to set right the
anomalies and common seniority list at State level for
certain post has been drawn in combining the two wings into
one single unit.’
37. The proposal was accepted in part and the intention, according
to Mr.Ramanlaal, was to adopt the single unit system only above the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
level of Assistants and Grade III Librarians in LLAs. The exact language
of the Government Order is as follows:
5.The Government have examined the matter in detail and
approved the proposal for institution of one unit system in the
Public Libraries Department. They accordingly direct that the
Connemara Public Library shall be kept as a separate unit and
the rest namely, the Director of Public Libraries and the Local
Library Authorities shall be treated as another separate unit
subject to the following conditions:
i) The one unit system shall be adopted only above the
Assistant level / of and above and level of Grade III Librarians
in Local Library Authorities and office of the Director of
Public Libraries, Madras.
ii) The Seniority of the staff shall be fixed as on 1.4.82
i.e. the date on which the Local Library Authority were
provincialised.
iii)Steps should be taken to inter se seniority between the
staff in department of Public Libraries and the Local Library
Authorities Invoking General Rules 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Services after framing of rules.’
38. The appellants point out that the phrase ‘of and above and’ in
clause (i) above makes no sense at all and hence should be eschewed in
reading the Clause. They would understand clause (i) to mean that the
single unit system must comprise of all those employees above and
including Assistants and Grade III Librarians.
39. G.O.Ms.No.1336 dated 07.07.1981 provides for or enables the
transfer of employees of one LLA to another LLA. The aforesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Government Order is, in fact, a beneficial one, in that, at that point in
time, there were no rules relating to transfer of employee at request and
in their absence the State would have had no power to effect such
transfers. G.O.Ms.No.1336 reads thus:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
ABSTRACT
Local Libraries Authorities - Transfer of
employees from one Local Library Authority to another
Local Library Authority - Orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
G. O. Ms. No. 1336 Dated: 07.07.1981
Read:
From the director of Public Libraries in charge
Letter No. Rc. 11786/B/80, dated, 14.04.1981.
*****
ORDER:
In this letter read above, the Director of Public
Libraries in charge has submitted proposals to
Government for transfer of employees of One Local
Library Authority to another Local Library Authority and
Recommended that orders may be issued on the following
lines:-
(i) To Transfer the Local Library Authority
employees from One L.L.A. to another at request.
(ii) To allow them in the new Local Library
Authority, the pay last drawn by them.
2.The Government after careful consideration
accept the recommendation of the director and
accordingly direct that the employees of One Local
Library Authority be transferred to another Local Library
Authority at request, that the pay last drawn by them in
the Previous Local Library Authority be allowed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
New Local Library Authority and that such Transferees
be placed as Junior most in the New Local Library
Authority.
3.The Government also direct that the Transfers of
employees of One Local Library Authority to another
Local Library Authority be ordered by the District
Library officers Concerned after obtaining the prior
approve of the Director of Public Libraries.
(By order of the Governor)
C. RAMDAS.
Commissioner and Secretary to
Government.
To
The Director of Public Libraries, Madras - 8
All District Library officers, South Arcot District,
Cuddalore.
The Examiner of Local Fund Accounts, Madras - 2.
/Forwarded by order/
Sd /-
Section Officer.
40. It is not in dispute that the transfers of the appellants before us
are at their request. However, in our view, that is not sole event on the
anvil of which their seniority must be considered. On 01.04.1982,
G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1992 had provided for provincialisation of
the services of the appellants, as a result that they were declared as
Government servants, entitled to all commensurate benefits.
41. On 11.12.1989, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1735 dated 11.12.1989, the
single unit system had been introduced with effect from 01.04.1982. The
transfers of all appellants were post 01.04.1982. Their contention that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
their transfers should thus be construed in the backdrop of G.O. Ms
No.820 providing for integration of the units of the LLAs is thus in our
view well founded.
42. Based on GO Ms.No.1735 dated 11.12.1989, a seniority list
had been prepared on 15.03.1990 taking into account the placement of
the employees and their seniority as on that date. In that seniority list,
they have been placed in rank of seniority as per their positions prior to
transfer, meaning that they had carried their seniority with them to the
transferred location.
43. The covering letter to Seniority list dated 15.03.1990 reads as
follows:
kJiu khtl;l E}yf mYtyhpd; bray;Kiwfs;
e/f/vz;/3763?,-90 ehs; 15/3/1990
?????
bghUs; : gzpahsh; bjhFjp ? khtl;l
E}yf Mizf;FG. kJiu ?
K:d;whk;epiy E}yfh;fs; ?
khepy gzp K:g;g[g;gl;oay; ?
bjhlh;ghf/
ghh;it:
bghJ E}yf ,af;Fehpd;
e/f/vz;/2897?m1-90?6 ehs;
1/3/90
???
ghh;itapy; fhQqk; bghJ E}yf ,af;Feh;
fojj;Jld; mDg;gg;gl;l K:d;whk;epiy
E}yfh;fSf;fhd khepy gzp K:g;g[g;gl;oay; ,j;Jld;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/
khepy mstpyhd gzp K:g;g[g;gl;oay; kPJ
Ml;nrgiz VJk; ,Ue;jhy; ,t;t[j;jut[ bgw;w
xU thuj;jpw;Fs; mDg;gpitf;Fk;go
bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
khtl;l E}yf mYtyh;.
kJiu
bgWeh;
rk;ke;jg;gl;lth;fSf;F
44. Seniority list dated 15.03.1990 had been challenged before the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which passed orders on 11.05.1992
reiterating the directives under GO Ms.No.1735, though with effect from
11.12.1989, only additionally protecting promotions already made till
such time rules had been framed and issued.
45. There was a direction to the State to create supernumerary
posts to accommodate affected seniors, if any. SLP (C) Nos. 7218 – 7250
of 1992 and batch challenging orders of the State Administrative
Tribunal dated 11.05.1992 had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on
29.04.1994.
46. Consequential effect was given by the State on 09.11.1994 in
Government Letter Ms.No.1080 Education, Science and Technology
Department confirming that only State wide seniority was to be
maintained within the Library Department and prohibiting promotion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
on District wise seniority.
47. On 07.03.1996, G.O.Ms.No.161 Education, Science and
Technology (K1) Department had been issued cancelling the instructions
issued on 09.11.1994 and proceeding to fill vacancies based on District
wise seniority list till such time adhoc rules had been framed.
48. Simultaneously, GO (ID) No.191 School Department (K1)
dated 10.11.1998 and GO (ID) No.190 School Education Department
dated 21.06.1999 had been issued creating 33 supernumerary posts for
persons whose seniority had been reverted and proceeding with the
implementation of the one unit system with retrospective effect.
49. After more than a decade, adhoc rules had been framed on
27.04.2006 in G.O.Ms.No.60 School Education Department for 15
category of posts and on 29.08.2006 a State wide seniority list had been
drawn up, adopting the cut-off date of 11.12.1989 fixed by the State
Administrative Tribunal. In this list, persons working at Librarian (Grade
III) were promoted to the post of Librarian (Grade II) with effective date
as 29.08.2006. G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 27.04.2006 reads as follows:
ABSTRACT
Public Services – Tamil Nadu Public Libraries
Subordinate Service – Temporary posts of Inspector of
Libraries, Librarian Grade I, Librarian Grade II Stock
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Verification Officer, Librarian Grade III, Building
Supervisor, Building Maistry, Film Operator, Plumber,
Electrician, Driver, Record Clerk, Sergeant, Binder and
Binding Boy in Public Libraries Department – Adhoc rules –
Issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Education (K2) Department
G.O.Ms.No.60 Dated: 27.4.2006
Read:
1. Proceedings of the Director of Public Libraries
Rc.No.134/J2/54 Dated: 23.11.55.
2. G.O.Ms.No.820, Education, Dated: 3.5.82
3. G.O.Ms.No.1774, Education Science & Technology, dated
07.08.82
4. G.O.Ms.No.1630, Education Science & Technology, dated
26.08.83
5. G.O.Ms.No.497, Education Department, dated 15.05.85
6. G.O.Ms.No.1561, Education Department, dated 29.09.87
7. G.O.Ms.No.596, Education Department, dated 11.4.88
*****
ORDER:
The Services of the staff of the Local Library
Authorities were provincialised with effect from 1.4.1982 as
ordered in G.O.Ms.No.820, Education dated 3.5.1982. The
Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1216,
Education dated: 12.9.84 that all the rules and regulations,
which were applicable to the Government servants issued
from time to time, will be applicable to the provincialised
Local Library Authority staff. In the Government Order
fourth read above the Government have also sanctioned the
creation of temporary posts of Inspector of Libraries,
Librarian Grade I, Librarian Grade II, Stock Verification
Officer and Librarian Grade III, Building Supervisor,
Building Maistry, Plumber, Electrician, Driver, Record
Clerk, Film Operator, Sergeant, Binder and Binding
Assistant in Public Libraries Department with effect from
1.4.82.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
2. In G.O.Ms.No.1735, Education, dated 11.12.1989
one unit system had been introduced comprising of 29 Local
Library Authorities and Directorate of Public Libraries as a
combined unit. The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal had ordered in the O.A.No.1370/90, etc. dated
11.05.1992 that the combined seniority may be drawn as on
11.12.1989 and should be followed only after framing the
service rules and also ordered that on the basis of District
wide seniority the promotions already made will stand till the
date of actual issue of the amendment in the rules. This was
confirmed by the Supreme Court order, dated 29.04.1994 in
S.L. (P.C.) No.14519-28/92. The Government in
G.O.Ms.No.161, Education, dated 07.03.1996 permitted the
Director of Public Libraries to fill up the posts by promotion
in District unit pending issue of adhoc rules.
3. Till the issue of orders by the Government for the
provincialisation of services of Local Library Authority staff,
they were governed by the Rules for the administration of the
Local Library Authorities issued by the Director of Public
Libraries in the proceedings Rc.No.134/J2/54 dated
23.11.1955 as directed by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.1649 Health Education and Local Administration
Department, dated 30.09.1955. After the provincialisation of
the Local Library Authority staff, Adhoc rules for the above
temporary posts are not issued so far. Hence the Rules for the
administration of the Local Library Authorities issued in the
Director of Public Libraries proceedings Rc.No.134/J2/54,
Dated 23.11.55 are followed till date. The Adhoc rules are
also proposed based on the Rules for the administration of
the Local Library Authorities issued in the Director of Public
Libraries proceedings Rc.No.134/J2/54, Dated: 23.11.55.
As Local Library Authority employees are made as
Government servants from 01.04.1982 and promotions are
given in the District unit as per the Director of Public
Libraries proceeding Rc.No.134/J2/54, Dated: 23.11.55 and
G.O.Ms.No.161, Education, dated 07.03.1996, it is essential
to give protection to the promotion already made. Hence
saving clause is proposed in adhoc rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
4. The following Notification will be published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:-
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu,
hereby, makes the following rules:-
2. The rules hereby made shall be deemed to have come into
force on the 1st April 1982.
RULES
The General and Special Rules applicable to the holders of
the permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Educational
Subordinate Service shall apply to the holders of the
temporary posts of Inspector of Libraries, Librarian Grade I,
Librarian Grade II, Stock Verification Officer, Librarian
Grade III (Trained), Grade III (untrained), Building
Supervisor, Building Maistry, Plumber, Electrician, Driver,
Record Clerk, Film Operator, Sergeant, Binder and Binding
Assistant in Public Libraries Department subject to the
modifications specified in the following rules:-
1. CONSTITUTION:- These Post shall each constitute a
separate category in separate class in the said services as
specified in the table below:
THE TABLE
Class Category
(1) (2)
Class 1 1. Inspector of Libraries
2. Librarian Grade I
3. Librarian Grade II
4. Stock Verification Officer
5. (a) Librarian Grade III (Trained)
(b) Librarian Grade III (Untrained)
2. Appointment:- Appointment to the posts specified in
column (1) of the table below shall be made by the methods
specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof:-
THE TABLE
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Categories Method of appointment
(1) (2)
Class I
1.Inspector of i.By Promotion from the posts of
Libraries Librarian
Grade II and Stock Verification
Officer.
(or)
i.By transfer from the post of
2.Librarian Grade I Librarian Grade I.
i.By promotion from the posts of
Librarian Grade II (or) Stock
Verification Officer, or
3.Librarian Grade ii.By transfer from the post of
II Inspector of Libraries.
i.By transfer from the post of Stock
Verification Officer or
ii.By promotion from the post of
4.Stock Verification Librarian Grade III (Trained)
Officer
i.By transfer from the post of
Librarian Grade II, or
ii.By promotion from the post of
Librarian Grade III (Trained)
5.(a) Librarian
Grade III (Trained) i.By promotion from the post of
5.(b) Librarian Record Clerk in the Public Libraries
Grade III Department.
(Untrained)
(or)
i.By recruitment by transfer from any
other service.
(or)
iii.By direct recruitment, if no suitable
candidate is available in methods (i)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
& (ii) above
3……………
4. Qualifications:-
a…………….
(b) Other qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the post specified in column (1) of the Table below by the
method specified in column (2) unless he possess the qualifications
specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof:-
THE TABLE
Category Method of Qualification
appointment
(2) (3) (4)
Class I
1. …………… ……… ………
2.Librarian Grade (i) By promotion A Degree of any
I (ii) By transfer University
recognized by
the University
Grants
Commission
and
A Degree in
Library and
Information
Science of any
University
recognized by
the University
Grants
Commission.
3.Librarian Grade (i) By transfer A Pass in SSLC
II (ii) By promotion of Matriculation
or its equivalent
and certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
in Library and
Information
Science or its
equivalent
approved by the
state
Government
4. ………. …………… …………….
5.Librarian Grade (i) By promotion (i)A Pass in
III (Trained) SSLC or
(ii)By recruitment by Matriculation
transfer from any or its
other service equivalent; and
(iii)By direct (ii)A Pass in
recruitment CLIS or it
5(a) Librarian equivalent
Grade III (i)By promotion approved by the
(Untrained) state
Government
(ii) By recruitment by A pass in SSLC
transfer from any or
other service Matriculation
(or) its
equivalent or
Without
(iii)By direct Minimum
recruitment General
Education
Qualification 15
years of service
in the post of
Record Clerk in
Public Libraries
Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
A pass in SSLC
or
Matriculation
or it equivalent.
50.The above rules deal with Librarians of all classes, Grades I, II
and III and there is nothing therein to support the stand of the
respondents that Grade III Librarians were intended to be treated any
differently from the others. However, on 02.05.2007, a revised list of
Librarian Grade II had been drawn, wherein the appellants were not
accorded proper seniority. The writ petitions filed challenging the
seniority list had been decided by order dated 08.04.2009.
51.Inter alia, the Court has directed that seniority as per
proceedings dated 29.08.2006 be restored, notional promotion to be
given to the petitioners who were eligible for promotion, adhoc
promotions made between 1996 and 2006 to be re-worked based on
seniority list dated 29.08.2006, all within a period of six months from
date of that order. It was made clear that list dated 29.08.2006 shall be
taken to be the final and conclusive list for the purpose of fixation of
seniority.
52.Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos.1173 of 2010 etc. batch were filed as
against the aforesaid order which came to be decided on 20.09.2010. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
para 6 of that order, the submission of the then learned Additional
Advocate General was recorded in the following terms:-
6. The learned Additional Advocate General very
fairly submitted that in order to give a quietus to the whole
issue, appellant State is willing to redo the entire exercise,
so as to avoid any disputes or complaints. Further, the
appellants are willing to scrape the earlier seniority list
including the list dated 29.08.2007 and would publish a
fresh draft seniority list within a time framed to be fixed by
this Court, invite objections to the same and thereafter
publish the final seniority list. This suggestion made by the
learned Additional Advocate General is acceptable to all
the learned counsels, who are appearing for the private
respondents as well as the private appellants in these
bunch of appeals. All the learned counsels submit that
there is no other aggrieved person to be heard in the
matter and all of those who had grievance to the seniority
list are before this Court.
53.The directions issued by the Court in conclusion are as
follows:-
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals
have been preferred, contending that the seniority list
dated 29.08.2006 does not contain the names of all those
who worked in the post of Librarian Gr.II, those who
retired on superannuation or on voluntary retirement and
it may not be the correct seniority list of Librarian Gr.II
and that the said seniority list dated 29.08.2006 does not
appear to have been drawn, taking into account, the
combined seniority list of Librarian Gr.II in various
districts in the department.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General very
fairly submitted that in order to give a quietus to the whole
issue, appellant State is willing to redo the entire exercise,
so as to avoid any disputes or complaints. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
appellants are willing to scrape the earlier seniority list
including the list dated 29.08.2007 and would publish a
fresh draft seniority list within a time framed to be fixed by
this Court, invite objections to the same and thereafter
publish the final seniority list. This suggestion made by the
learned Additional Advocate General is acceptable to all
the learned counsels, who are appearing for the private
respondents as well as the private appellants in these
bunch of appeals. All the learned counsels submit that
there is no other aggrieved person to be heard in the
matter and all of those who had grievance to the seniority
list are before this Court.
7. Thus taking note of the submission made and
recording the consensus arrived at between the parties
these appeals are disposed of with the following direction:
-
i) The appellant shall prepare a draft state wide
seniority list of Librarian Gr.l/Inspector of Libraries within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
ii) The appellant shall publish the draft state wide
seniority list by bringing to the notice of all the
Librarians/Inspector of Libraries and all other persons
who may be aggrieved through the District Library
Officers.
iii) The Librarians/Inspector of Libraries and other
persons aggrieved shall submit their objections, if any to
the draft seniority list within a period of two weeks from
the date of publication of the draft seniority list.
iv) On receipt of these objections, the appellants
shall consider the same and publish the final seniority list
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
objections from aggrieved persons.
8. With the above directions, these appeals are
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
54.The concession of the State via learned Additional Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
General is that earlier seniority lists including list dated 29.08.2007
would be scrapped and a fresh draft seniority list would be published.
55.A clarification petition was filed seeking inclusion of the posts
of Grade II Librarians as well, within the ambit of the directions issued
by the Bench and that petition was ordered on 06.12.2010 as sought for.
A draft seniority list had been released on 22.12.2010, objections sought
for and a final list released on 11.02.2011.
56.In that list, promotions had been given to eligible employees to
Librarian Grade I for their services in the post of Librarian Grade II and
some employees had been reverted from Librarian Grade I to Grade II
and from Grade II to Grade III. Special Leave Petitions had been filed by
employees unhappy with the reversion from Grade I to II and Grade II to
III.
57.A fresh writ petition had been filed by some employees in
W.P.No. 20475 of 2012 wherein the prayer was for consideration of their
seniority from date of joining in the parent districts and not from date of
joining in the new district on request transfer. That writ petition had been
dismissed on 19.01.2017, challenging which a writ appeal is stated to
have been filed. We are unaware of the fate of that writ appeal and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
matter was never sought to be consolidated with the present writ appeal.
58. We are of the considered opinion that the order of the State
Administrative Tribunal dated 11.05.1992 confirmed by this Court on
08.04.2009 binds the State. The subsequent proceedings such as the
orders passed in writ appeal and SLP pertain only to Grade I and Grade II
Librarians and would have no bearing on the cases of the four appellants
before us. It is to be noted that the present appellants have been fighting
this issue from 1990 onwards and in the case of one Karl Marx a similar
claim by the latter has been accepted vide proceedings dated 28.10.2002,
which reads as follows:
khtl;l E}yf mYtyh; j";rht{h; bray;Kiwfs;
Kd;dpiy: jpU/j/braghy;. gp/V/. gp/vy;/I/v!;/.
khtl;l E}yf mYtyh; (T/bgh)
e/f/vz;/1896-,1-2002 (1) ehs; 28/10/2002
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(jpUts;Stuhz;L 2033 rpj;ughD. Ig;grp?11)
bghUs; : gzpahsh; bjhFjp ? khtl;l E}yf
Mizf;FG j";rht{h;. khtl;lika E}yfk; ?
3?k; epiy E}yfh; jpU/K/g/fhuy;khh;f;!;
vd;gtuJ gzpK:g;g[ jpUj;jk; bra;J Miz
tH';Fjy; ? bjhlh;ghf/
ghh;it: 1/ ,t;tYtyf bray;Kiw e/f/vz;/1896-,1-
2002. ehs; 28/3/2002 kw;Wk; 22/5/2002/
2/ bghJ E}yf ,af;Feh; mth;fspd;
bray;Kiw e/f/vz;/6786-m3-2002/ ehs;/
3/10/2002
???
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
j";rht{h; khtl;l E}yf Mizf;FG khtl;l ika
E}yfj;jpy; 3?k; epiy E}yfuhfg; gzpg[hpa[k;
jpU/K/g/fhuy;khh;f;!; vd;gthpd; 29/5/2002 ehspl;l
nky;KiwaPL tpz;zg;gj;jpid Vw;W ghh;it 2?y; fhQqk;
bghJ E}yf ,af;Feh; mth;fspd; bray;Kiw Mizapy;
jpU/K/g/fhuy;khh;f;!; 3?k; epiy E}yfuhf gzpapy; nrh;e;j
ehshd 5/4/95 gzpK:g;ghf eph;zak; bra;J mjidj;
bjhlh;e;J mtUf;Fhpa gzpg;gad;fis tH';f
mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
,jidj;bjhlh;e;J ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; ,t;tYtyf
bray;Kiw Mizapy; btspaplg;gl;l gzpK:g;g[ gl;oay;
thpir vz; 6 kw;Wk; 7?y; fhQqk; 3?k; epiy E}yfh;fspd;
gzpK:g;g[ fPHf
; f
; z;lthW khw;wk; bra;J Miz
tH';fg;gLfpwJ/
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
thpir bgah; gpwe;j Kjypy; 3?k;epiy 3?k; epiy
vz; ehs; gzpapy; E}yfuhf E}yfh; gzpapy;
nrh;e;j gzpapy; gzptud;Kiw
ehs; nrh;e;jehs; ehs;
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
1/ jpU/K/g/fhuy;khh;f! ; ; 25/7/73 15/7/92 5/4/95 31/12/96
2/ jpU/j/fhkuh$; 25/7/65 04/8/97 4/8/97 4/8/97
3/ jpUkjp/k/,uhn$!;thp 28/6/69 13/7/98 13/7/98 14/7/98
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gl;l ,g;gzpK:g;g[ gl;oay; bjhlh;gi [ la
gzpahsh;fSf;F rhh;g[gLj;jg;gLfpwJ/
,r;bray;Kiw Mizapid bgw;Wf; bfhz;likf;fhd
xg;g[jiy ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F rkh;g;gpf;FkhW bjhlh;g[ila
gzpahsh;fs; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;fs;/
khtl;l E}yf mYtyh; (T/bgh)
j";rht{h;.
bghWeh; : bjhlh;gi
[ la
gzpahsh;fs; (tHpKiwapy;)
efy;:bghJ E}yf ,af;Feh; mth;fl;Fg; gdpj;jDg;gg;gLfpwJ
59.One of the appellants, G.Gopoojana, has filed an affidavit dated
13.08.2019 attesting to the dates and events in the case of Karl Marx in
the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
....
2. I state that I joined as Librarian Grade III on
21.06.1987 in the office of Pudukottai District Library. I state
that I sought for transfer from Pudukottai to Chennai District
Library office in the year 1994. My request was considered
and I joined District Library Office Chennai on 21.12.1994. It
is submitted that from the year 1982 the entire Library
Service became state service. Further by G.O.Ms.No. 1735
dated 11.12.1989 State Level seniority was ordered to be
constituted for the post of Librarian Grade III. However
strangely my seniority in the grade of Librarian grade III was
fixed as if I joined on 21.12.1994, thus erasing my earlier
service in the post of Librarian grade III on the ground that I
got transferred on the basis of my request.
3. While so, in the case of one M.P. Karl Marx who had
been transferred from Thiruvarur to Tanjore on request
transfer as Library Grade III, his seniority was fixed based on
the date of joining as Librarian Grade III. I have enclosed in
the typed set the necessary documents, which will establish in
the case of one M.P. Karl Marx even though he was
transferred from Thiruvarur to Tanjore as Library Grade III
his seniority was fixed by taking into account the date of
joining as Librarian Grade III at Thiruvarur. In other words
his seniority was fixed based on the date of joining as
Librarian Grade III. The necessary document wherein his
seniority was protected is filed in the Typed Set of Papers.
When the facts remain so, they cannot take a different stand
as far as we are concerned. From the documents produced
along with this affidavit it is clear that merely because an
employee see request transfer in the post of Librarian Grade
III, the said post being a state level post their seniority shall
not be disturbed on the ground that they sought for request
transfer. It is relevant to point out that the said M.P.Karl
Marx was promoted as Grade I as early as 07.07.2004
whereas we are still working as Library Grade II even though
all of us are seniors to M.P.Karl Marx. These facts may be
taken into account while deciding the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
60.There is no dispute in regard to the above factual position. We
thus see no reason why the claim of the present appellants must stand on
a different footing. We reiterate that the objection relating to transfers
based on request will not be relevant in the present case. The State as
well as R17 have cited several decisions and we need only refer to the
recent decision in the case of Secretary to Government Department and
another v K.C.Devaki (2025 SCC Online SC 639) wherein the Supreme
Court has reiterated the position that on request transfer, the employee
must be placed at the end of seniority in the transferred location.
61.A distinction has been made between request transfer and
transfer in administrative interest, the latter being at the instance of the
employer and the interest of functioning of that department.
62.Hence in case of transfers in administrative interest the
employee carries his seniority with him to the transferred location
whereas in case of request transfer he is to be denied this benefit. This
ratio would not stand to the detriment of the present appellants in view of
the circumstances adumbrated in the paragraphs supra. While the
transfers were originally at their request, their positioning on account of
the request transfer become immaterial on account of the subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
provincialisation and integration of LLAs. The orders of the State
Administrative Tribunal and this Court would also support this
conclusion.
63.That apart, Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Services Rules which is in pari materia with Section 40 of the Tamil
Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, makes
this position clear. Rule 35(a), to the extent to which it is relevant, is
extracted below:
35. Fixation of seniority of a person in service
35(a) …………
(aa) The seniority of a person in a service, class,
category or grade shall, where the normal method of
recruitment to that service, class, category or grade is by
more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual
has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be
determined with reference to the date on which he is
appointed to the services, class, category or grade;
…………..
(b) The transfer of a person from one class or category
of a service to another class or category carrying the same
pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to
the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a
person so transferred all be determined with reference to the
rank in the class or category from which he was transferred;
where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule,
seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority.
…………
64.A reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that the default
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
position in cases of transfers is that the transferred employee carries his
seniority with him to the new location. In the present case, being
conscious of the fact the transfers were at the request of the employee
and having regard to the unique circumstances that we have outlined
above, we are of the considered view that the benefit of this Rule should
be extended to the appellants before us as has been done in the cases of
other similarly placed employees as well.
65.That apart, we also do think it appropriate that the State should
not proceed in two diametrically different directions as far as the services
of the employees in one department is concerned, particularly as the 2006
rules indicate no such difference in approach.
66.Under G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1982, the entirety of the
LLAs have been directed to be provincialized. According to the State, the
impact of provincialisation is merely to accord State Government
benefits for employees in the LLA and nothing more. In our view, this
was the first step towards integration of the LLAs for all purposes.
67.The educational qualifications for the Librarians that have been
extracted supra reveals that there is no difference in the educational
qualifications between Grade II and III librarians. For that matter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
nature of services rendered by the Librarians at all Grades, be it in the
District or the State Unit, is one and the same. The State has confirmed
that the recruitment of Grade III Librarians is at the level of the District
and the agency that recruits them is the District Library Officer and not
the Director of Public Libraries as in the case of Librarian Grade I and II.
Even so, we do not find any justification in maintaining two water-tight
cadres, one in the State and the other District and for keeping the Grade
III Librarians out of the State cadre.
68.The State refers, for the first time in this litigation, to
proceedings in MS.No.769/Education/E2 dated 06.06.1990 proposing an
amendment to clause (i) of G.O.MS.No.1735, Education dt. 11-12-89.
The amendment reads as follows:
From To
Thiru V.Sankara Subbaiyan, IAS. Ms.No.769/Education/K2
Secretary to Government, Fort St. George,
Education department. Madras-9
Dt. 6-6-90.
To
The Director of Public Libraries,
Madras-2
Sir,
Sub: Public Libraries – Department of Public
Libraries – One Unit system – orders issued in
G.O.MS.No.1735, Education dt. 11-12-89 –
Amendment – issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Ref: 1)G.O.MS.No.1735, Education dt. 11-12-89
2)Your lr.No.19663/A1/88-1 dt. 19.12.89 &
12.1.90
The following amendment is issued to
G.O.MS.No.1735, Education dt. 11-12-89.
Amendment
For the existing Sub para (1) under para 5 of
G.O.MS.No.1735, Education dt. 11-12-89, the following sub
para shall be substituted.
“(i)The One Unit system shall be adopted for purposes
of maintaining a common seniority list at State level for
postings, transfers, promotions etc. Of all categories of staff
from the level of Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
service and from the level of Grade II Librarians in the Office
of the Director of Public Libraries, Madras in the Offices of
all Local Library Authorities in the State”.
69.Vide this amendment, it is stated that the single unit system
shall be maintained only from the level of Grade II Librarians and hence
Grade III Librarians stand outside the ambit of the State system. An
affidavit dated 06.02.2025 has been filed by the Secretary to
Government, Education Department/R1confirming this position.
70.As already indicated, we see no justification for a two-pronged
approach in the Library services of the State. In fact, it has only led to
confusion, compounded by conflicting and unclear Government Orders
passed from time to time, lack of proper understanding and
implementation of the Government Orders and abject delay in framing of
the rules, till date, only adhoc. Surely, the Library movement in the State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
will be better supported by all library units coming under common State
monitoring for which we believe GO Ms.No.820 dated 03.05.1982 has
paved the way.
71.Mr.Ramanlaal tells us that a High Level Committee
(Committee) has been constituted under G.O.(Ms).No.3, School
Education Department dated 19.01.2022, to regulate the service rules of
this Department. According to a note given by him, the Committee has
submitted its recommendations to the Government and the same are
under consideration. We are today in 2025 and both the report of the
Committee and the decision of the Government are yet to see the light of
the day.
72.In the light of the discussion as above, we are of the considered
view that the appellants are liable to succeed. We are inclined to direct
that there shall be no disturbance to the seniority of the private
respondents by virtue of this order and we direct so.
73. The Anna Library in both the State Capital as well as in
Madurai stand testament to the power and attraction of the printed word,
as, on any given day the libraries are chock a block with visitors of all
ages, senior citizens, toddlers et al. The child friendly reading halls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
brimming with kids is a treat to the eyes. The efforts of the State should
be to replicate this venue at all levels for which purpose a comprehensive
and streamlined Library Department is the need of the hour.
74. This Writ Appeal is allowed. Let consequence be given within
a period of four (4) weeks from date of uploading of this order on the
official website of the Court. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]
sl 01.07.2025
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Public Libraries
No.737/1, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
No.12A, Vigilmear Street,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
4.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
Public Office Road (Opp.Court)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
Velipalayam, Nagapattinam
5.The District Library Officer
District Library Officer,
No.735, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
6.The District Library Officer (IC),
Cherarajan Salai,
Hasthampatty, Salem 7.
7.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
District Central Library Building
Masjeeth Road, Sivagangai District,
Pin 630 561.
8.The District Library Officer,
District Library Office,
1234, Periyakadaiveethi,
Coimbatore – 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J.
Sl
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT
01.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 07:18:42 pm )
