Rule 3(g) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules interpreted disjunctively; satisfaction of either limb (no promotional avenues or lower pay) suffices for recruitment by transfer.

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.26825 of 2023, dated 24.01.2025, whereby the show cause notice dated 15.09.2023 was set aside, the State has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

2.The respondent/writ petitioner was originally appointed as a Record Clerk and was subsequently promoted as a Lab Assistant. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant by way of recruitment by transfer. It is an admitted position that the post of Lab Assistant does not carry any promotional avenue and that the post carries the same scale of pay as that of Junior Assistant.

3.By the show cause notice dated 15.09.2023, the fourth appellant proposed to cancel the appointment of the writ petitioner as Junior Assistant and to revert him to the post of Lab Assistant. The said action was sought to be taken by invoking Rule 3(g) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

4.The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) No. 1511 of 2024, dated 05.09.2024, as well as the order passed in W.P(MD) No.26311 of 2023, dated 02.01.2025, set aside the show cause notice dated 15.09.2023.

Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed the present Writ Appeal.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that, as per Rule 3(g) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, appointment by recruitment by transfer is permissible only in respect of persons who are in categories having no promotional opportunities or, even after more than one promotion, continue to draw a scale of pay lower than that of Junior Assistant, Junior Assistant-cum-Typist or Typist. It is submitted that both the conditions must be read in conjunction.

6.It is further contended that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Record Clerk and subsequently promoted as Lab Assistant. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the case of the writ petitioner would fall only under the second limb of Rule 3(g), and since he is drawing a scale of pay equal to that of Junior Assistant, he would not be entitled to appointment by recruitment by transfer. It is thus submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly consider the scope of the Rule.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the post of Lab Assistant admittedly has no promotional avenues and carries the same scale of pay as that of Junior Assistant. It is contended that Rule 3(g) contains two independent conditions, and satisfaction of either one of them is sufficient to make a person eligible for recruitment by transfer. It is further submitted that the Rule does not prohibit a person, who has already been promoted within the service, from being considered under the first limb, if the category in which he is presently working has no promotional opportunities. 8.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9.Rule 3(g) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules reads as follows:

“3. Method of Recruitment – Special:

…

(g) Besides direct recruitment as provided in Rule 2, appointment to the categories of Junior Assistant, Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and Typist shall be made by recruitment by transfer from other services, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) Persons in services, other than the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, who are in categories having no promotional opportunities or, even after more than one promotion in the respective service, would still be in a category carrying a scale of pay lower than