In this writ appeal, the High Court of Madras disposed of a challenge to the transfer of a Panchayat Secretary. The court held the transfer valid under Rule 11 despite intra-Block ambiguity and noted but did not decide on lapsing tenure.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 4.1.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.A.No.1304 of 2016
and C.M.P.Nos.16914 and 19208 of 2016
M.Saraswathy, President, Narasingapuram Village Panchayat, Wallajah Panchayat Union, Vellore District. Appellant
-vs-
Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.10.2016 rendered in W.P.No.8151 of 2016.
Wp8151/2016Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying of Issue of Writ of CertiorariCalling for the records passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka. PC1/3039/ 2012 dated 11.02.2016 and the consequential orders passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka. A2/332/ 2012 dated 16.02.2016 and quash the same
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kamadevan For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri
J U D G E M E N T
NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by the writ petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition instituted by her.
shall be appointed to the post unless he is a resident of the village Panchayat concerned. An argument is developed on this score by the learned counsel that since the fourth respondent in the writ petition is not a resident of Narasingapuram Village Panchayat, he ought not to have been posted as Panchayat Secretary in the said Panchayat. It is plain from Rule 5 that qualifications have been prescribed for the purpose of appointment to the post. Therefore, Rule 5 deals with the initial stage of all appointments whereas Rule 11 of the said Rules talks of the transfers. Therefore, when we read Rules 5 and 11 together, it becomes imminently clear that only at the stage of initial appointment, perhaps, it is required that the candidate seeking appointment is required to be a resident of the Panchayat concerned. Even there, we record our disapproval of the imprecise language employed in Rule 5. Rule 5 talks of qualifications for the purpose of appointment as Panchayat Secretaries. When once a cadre called as Panchayat Secretary has been constituted by the Governor and Rules are framed for the purpose of regulating the conditions of service of such personnel, the question of insisting, even for initial recruitment, that the candidate must be a resident of the Panchayat Union concerned is an absolute redundant factor. Any such eligibility condition for recruitment for public services offends the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. It is time, a fresh look is given and corrective measures have to be taken. It is one thing to say that preference will be given in the matter of employment for those who are residing in one Panchayat or Panchayat Union or the other as the case may. But, it is altogether a different thing to confine the recruitment exclusively in favour of the resident of the same Panchayat. In other words, resident of one Panchayat is effectively denied the opportunity to compete for recruitment as Panchayat Secretary to the neighbouring Panchayat. That is not what equality of opportunity in employment guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, would set out or approve. We, therefore, hope and trust that the Stage Government will spare adequate consideration for suitably altering the eligibility conditions prescribed in Rule 5.
earlier, it would result in removal of the existing Panchayat Secretary there. Instead of indulging in such a cumbersome process, the Personal Assistant to the Collector (Development) has chosen a softer option of posting the fourth respondent against the vacancy available at Narasingapuram Panchayat as that would avoid causing hardship to the existing Panchayat Secretary appointed in the place of the fourth respondent originally. Therefore, in the exigency of service and purely for administrative reasons alone, the power is exercised. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of transfer, in fact, falls within the first limb/clause of Rule 11. Whereas Rule 11 (2) talks of the authority for effecting such transfers. Transfers intra-Block are to be made by the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) whereas, the inter-Block transfers have to be made by the Personal Assistant to the Collector (Development).
the necessary information either should be sourced from the Executive Authority of the Panchayat/Panchayat Union as the case may be or the same should be passed on to the said authority. In that view of the matter, care should be taken henceforth for passing on prior information to the Executive Authority concerned.
Subject to what has been observed by us, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
W.A.No.1304 of 2016
KJI(CO) GN(31/01/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer order passed by the Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development) under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, is va
Whether the requisite consultation with the Executive Authority of the Panchayat was necessary before passing the transfer order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None explicitly citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Saraswathy
The District Collector, Vellore District
The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development)
The Block Development Officer, Wallajah Panchayat Union
V.K. Vasudevan
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
