Disposed¶114

S.Selvan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2025WP(MD)/4159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Food Safety Officers; Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department; Municipal Administration Department; permanent absorption vs deputation; repatriation to parent department; regularization of service; G.O.(Ms).No.347 dated 22.12.2011; W.A.No.1406 of 2024; transfer barred unless Rules permit; Article 226 Certiorarified Mandamus; writ petition disposed with observations; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No formal relief of quashing or direction to regularize was separately pronounced; the writ petition was disposed of 'with the above observations' (that the petitioners are regular employees of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department and cannot be transferred to other departments unless the Rules permit); no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶114

S.Selvan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶114

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, working as Food Safety Officers in the newly created Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department after earlier serving under the Municipal Administration Department, are permanently absorbed/regular employees of the new Department rather than on deputation, so that they cannot be repatriated or transferred to the parent/original Department. +1 more

¶97

Court's answer

The petitioners are the regular employees of the present Department, i.e., the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, as already held by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1406 of 2024 (permanent absorption on integration, not deputation).

¶110

Ratio / Principle

Being regular employees of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, the petitioners cannot be transferred to other departments unless the Rules permit.

¶111

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), K. Rajasekar J., 19.06.2025 - Thirty-one Food Safety Officers of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department (earlier serving under the Municipal Administration Department) filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the fourth respondent's order in R.No.6486/2018/S1/FSSA dated 20.12.2018 and to direct regularization of their service as Food Safety Officers. The new Department had been created by G.O.(Ms).No.347, Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department, dated 22.12.2011. Noting that a Division Bench in W.A.No.1406 of 2024 had already held that similarly placed Food Safety Officers stood permanently absorbed in the newly formed Department on 'integration' (and not on deputation), and that a repatriation order resting on adverse findings without show cause notice offended natural justice, the learned Single Judge observed that these petitioners too are regular employees of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department and cannot be transferred to other departments unless the Rules permit. With these observations the writ petition was disposed of; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD).Nos.3264 to 3266 of 2019 closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD).Nos.3264 to 3266 of 2019

¶9

1.S.Selvan,

¶10

Food Safety Officer,

¶11

Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Sakkottai & Kannangudi Block, Sivagangai District.

¶12

2.A.R.Sankaralingam,

¶13

Food Safety Officer,

¶14

Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Keelapavoor Block, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

3.R.Jothimani,

¶16

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Shanarpatti & Vadamadurai Blocks, Dindigul District.

¶17

4.P.Kalimuthu,

¶18

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Sivakasi @ Watrap Block, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

5.M.Sankaranarayanan,

¶20

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Thirupparankundram Block, Madurai District.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 11

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶23

6.K.Mohanarangam,

¶24

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Kottampatti Block, Madurai District.

¶25

7.V.Subburaj,

¶26

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Thondamuthur Block, Coimbatore District.

¶27

8.R.Senthil,

¶28

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, S.Pudur & Singampunari Blocks, Sivagangai District.

¶29

9.H.Lingam,

¶30

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Nilakottai & Batlagundu Blocks, Dindigul District.

¶31

10.K.Suruli,

¶32

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Valapadi Block, Salem District.

¶33

11.P.Selva Pandian,

¶34

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Pollachi Municipality & North Blocks, Coimbatore District.

¶35

12.S.Veluchamy,

¶36

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Sulur Block, Dindigul District.

¶37

13.A.Leo Andrews,

¶38

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Dharapuram Municipality, Tirupur District.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 11

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶41

14.K.Shanmugasundaram, Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Athoor Block, Dindigul District.

¶42

15.T.Ramakrishnan,

¶43

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Natham Block, Dindigul District.

¶44

16.A.S.Saranya,

¶45

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul District.

¶46

17.K.Ramasamy,

¶47

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Trichy Corporation, Trichy District.

¶48

18.M.Ramesh,

¶49

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Marungapuri & Vaiyampatti Blocks, Trichy District.

¶50

19.M.Chandramohan,

¶51

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Vallioor Block, Tirunelveli District.

¶52

20.V.Maharajan,

¶53

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Sathankulam & Udangudi Blocks, Thoothukudi District.

¶54

21.S.Chandrasekar,

¶55

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Thoothukudi Block, Thoothukudi District.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 11

¶57

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶58

22.P.Muniyaraj,

¶59

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Ottapidaram Block, Thoothukudi District.

¶60

23.T.Murugan,

¶61

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Namakkal & Puduchatram Block, Namakkal District.

¶62

24.M.Muthukrishnan,

¶63

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Bhavani Municipality & Erode Block, Erode District.

¶64

25.R.Muthukumar,

¶65

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli District.

¶66

26.D.Selvaraj,

¶67

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Thottiyam Block, Trichy District.

¶68

27.M.Kumarapandian,

¶69

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Alwarthirunagari Block, Thoothukudi District.

¶70

28.M.Palchamy,

¶71

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Lalgudi Block, Trichy District.

¶72

29.M.S.Murugesan,

¶73

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Krishnarayapuram & Thogamalai Block, Karur District.

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 11

¶75

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶76

30.P.Thangavel,

¶77

Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Mannachanallur Block, Trichy District.

¶78

31.V.Chelladurai, Food Safety Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Thathayengaipet Block, Trichy District.

¶79

.. Petitioners

¶80

Vs.

¶81

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶82

2.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶83

Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶84

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶85

4.The Commissioner,

¶86

Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. .. Respondents

¶87

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in his proceedings in R.No.6486/ 2018/S1/FSSA dated 20.12.2018 and quash the same as illegal and

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 11

¶89

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶90

consequently to direct the 4^th respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners as Food Safety Officer in the 4^th respondent Department within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶91

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Saravanan Senior Advocate for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶92

ORDER

¶93

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings in R.No.6486/2018/S1/FSSA dated 20.12.2018 and consequently, to direct the fourth respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners as Food Safety Officer in the fourth respondent Department within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶94

The writ petitioners are the Food Safety Officers working in the Food Safety & Drug Administration Department. Originally, they were working in various posts under the Municipal Administration Department. Subsequently, a separate new Department, namely, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department was created by G.O.(Ms).No.347, Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department, dated 22.12.2011 and the petitioners were

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 11

¶96

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶97

all working in the new Department. In this regard, the petitioners had apprehended that they may be again repatriated to the parent Department on the ground that the present posting is a deputation.

¶98

The newly formed Department has also taken steps to directly recruit the Food Safety Officers under the new Act since the qualifications and other criteria are fixed. Based on the apprehension, few persons, who were employed as Food Safety Officers, have approached the Principal Bench of Madras High Court and the Division Bench in W.A.No.1406 of 2024 has considered the case regarding their status in the newly formed Department. It has been held as follows:

¶99

“(9)From the proceedings of the 1^st appellant dated 20.09.2011, the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Food Safety Officer along with 384 others. From the order of appointment, there is no indication to infer deputation. As a matter of fact, the proceedings dated 22.12.2011, vide G.O.Ms.No.347, Health and Family Welfare Department, would show that the Government on the basis of the recommendation and proposals of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, created a new Department called ''Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration [TNFS & DA] by integrating the existing Food Wing and Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 11

¶101

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶102

Drug Control Department. The word ''integration'' gives an indication that all the Food Safety Officers who were named in the order of appointment, got permanently absorbed in the 1^st appellant Department. Therefore, the contention of the appellants cannot be countenanced.

¶103

(10)After the creation of the new Department called TNFS&DA Department to implement the Food Safety and Standards Act, 1954, the post of Food Inspector may not survive. From the communication dated 01.10.2012 of the 1^st appellant to the 2^nd respondent herein, in view of the creation of 584 posts of Food Safety Officers in the Food Safety Wing, this Court has seen that the Food Safety Department was integrated with the Health Department. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petitioner was deputed to Food Safety Department and the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was also holding lien to conclude that the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was bound to join the parent Department, namely, 2^nd respondent herein, is not acceptable.

¶104

(11)From the order that is impugned in the writ petition, 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was sent to 2^nd respondent Department only on the basis of negligence and inefficiency against the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in holding that the impugned order directing the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 11

¶106

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶107

who was hitherto working in the 1^st appellant to the 2^nd respondent pointing out certain deficiency in service, is unsustainable. When an order affecting the civil rights of the person is based on certain adverse findings against the individual, the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner ought to have been given proper opportunity to put forth his case. This is possible only if a show cause notice is issued and thereafter, action is taken considering the objections if any, by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge categorically found that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice.”

¶108

The petitioners herein have also raised a similar apprehension that they

¶109

may also be repatriated to the parent Department and their service herein is a permanent absorption in the new Department. Hence, they cannot be again deputed or repatriated to their original Department, where, they have joined and served as Sanitary Inspector.

¶110

Since the Division Bench has already held that the petitioners are the

¶111

regular employees of the present Department, i.e., Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, they cannot be transferred to other departments unless the Rules permit.

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 11

¶113

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶114

With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶115

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶116

19.06.2025

¶117

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶118

To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶119

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶120

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶121

4.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai-6.

¶122

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 11

¶123

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶124

K.RAJASEKAR,J.

¶125

¶126

W.P.(MD).No.4159 of 2019

¶127

19.06.2025

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 11

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S.Selvan¶9
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
A.R.Sankaralingam¶12
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
R.Jothimani¶15
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
P.Kalimuthu¶17
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Sankaranarayanan¶19
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
K.Mohanarangam¶23
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
V.Subburaj¶25
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
R.Senthil¶27
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
H.Lingam¶29
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
K.Suruli¶31
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
P.Selva Pandian¶33
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
S.Veluchamy¶35
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
A.Leo Andrews¶37
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
K.Shanmugasundaram¶41
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
T.Ramakrishnan¶42
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
A.S.Saranya¶44
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
K.Ramasamy¶46
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Ramesh¶48
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Chandramohan¶50
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
V.Maharajan¶52
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
S.Chandrasekar¶54
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
P.Muniyaraj¶58
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
T.Murugan¶60
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Muthukrishnan¶62
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
R.Muthukumar¶64
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
D.Selvaraj¶66
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Kumarapandian¶68
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.Palchamy¶70
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
M.S.Murugesan¶72
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
P.Thangavel¶76
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
petitioner
V.Chelladurai¶78
B.Saravanan (Sr.)
respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9¶81
N.Satheesh Kumar
respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9¶82
N.Satheesh Kumar
respondent
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5¶84
N.Satheesh Kumar
respondent
The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai-6¶86
N.Satheesh Kumar

Coram

AI extract

K.RAJASEKARauthor¶5

S.Selvan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Mahalakshmi Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

Pl.Surya Kala, Vs the Inspector of General of

M.Hariharan, S/O.S.Madavan, Vs the Chairman Cum

E.Muthiah, Vs the Director

V.Sankaran, (PRESIDENT,E.E.427 Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

Manikandan, Vs the District Collector