2012 Supreme(Mad) 4899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Hariparanthaman, J.
S. Muniyandi and Others
Versus
State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Chennai and Others
W.P. Nos. 19901, 25894 and 29016 of 2008, 12025 and 13298 of 2012 and connected M.Ps.
Decided On : 19 December, 2012

The Court held 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. The Court further held that the fixation of a five-year period for filling up deployed posts by the Director of Horticulture was not arbitrary and had a nexus to the object of restructuring of staff in the Departments.

Headnote:

The High Court of Madras interpreted the Government Order (G.O.) (Ms) No. 537, Agriculture Department, dated 24.12.2007, which restructured the Directorates of Agriculture, Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Seed Certification and Organic Certification, Agricultural Marketing and Agri-Business, and Tamil Nadu Horticulture Development Agency (TANHODA). The Court addressed the issues of reallocation of staff, up-gradation of posts, and filling of vacant posts arising due to promotion or retirement of deployed staff.

Fact of the Case:

The restructuring involved reallocation of staff among the Directorates, with the total strength remaining the same. The existing Three Tier System was made into Two Tier System. The Court noted that the restructuring aimed to provide technological assistance and subsidies to farmers at one point. The Court also acknowledged the Government's policy shift towards "producing for markets" instead of the earlier "Green Revolution" type production-oriented agriculture.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the restructuring of the Directorates was a policy decision of the Government and could not be questioned by the petitioners, who were employees in the Horticulture Department. The Court relied on judgments of the Supreme Court which held 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. The Court further held that the fixation of a five-year period for filling up deployed posts by the Director of Horticulture was not arbitrary and had a nexus to the object of restructuring of staff in the Departments.

Issues: 1. Whether the restructuring of the Directorates was a policy decision of the Government and could be questioned by the petitioners. 2. Whether the fixation of a five-year period for filling up deployed posts by the Director of Horticulture was arbitrary and had a nexus to the object of restructuring of staff in the Departments.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the restructuring of the Directorates was a policy decision of the Government and could not be questioned by the petitioners, who were employees in the Horticulture Department. The Court relied on judgments of the Supreme Court which held 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. 2. The Court further held that the fixation of a five-year period for filling up deployed posts by the Director of Horticulture was not arbitrary and had a nexus to the object of restructuring of staff in the Departments.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions, holding that paras 12 and 17(x) of G.O. (Ms) No. 537 did not empower the Director of Agriculture to fill in the vacant deployed post during the five years period. However, the Court clarified 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 were 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 22.1.2012.