http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: K.KARUPPANNAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/05/1999

BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, S.N.Phukhan

JUDGMENT:

QUADRI, J

     In  this appeal the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,  Madras  in O.A.No.2605 dated 11-1-1995, is  under challenge.   The  third respondent in the said O.A.  is  the appellant.   To  appreciate  the question  arising  in  this appeal, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.  Under the  Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959  [Act No.23  of 1959] (for short ‘the Act) various district Market Committees  came into being.  The appellant was appointed as Junior  Assistant  in the Market Committee, Madurai on  July 22,  1976.   By  an order issued on November  17,  1981  the Government  of  Tamil  Nadu declared that  all  the  persons working   in  various  district   Market   Committees   were Government  servants  or  would  be  treated  as  Government servants with effect from that date.  In 1982-83, there were 17  vacancies of Supervisors in Thanjavur Market  Committee. After  calling  for  options  from  the  eligible  staff  of district  Market  Committees, the Director  of  Agricultural Marketing,  Trichirapalli  transferred the  appellant  along with   others  to  Thanjavur   Market  Committee  for  their appointment  as  Supervisors.  The Market  Committee  passed Resolution  No.12/82-83  on  17.3.83   appointing  them   as Supervisors  and  on  March  18,  1983  in  Proceeding  No.1 E1/893/83,  the  Secretary  of  Thanjavur  Market  Committee issued  orders of their appointment.  The appellant is shown at   Sl.No.14  in  the   said  proceedings.   In  Proceeding No.E1/13639/84  dated 26.7.84 issued by the Secretary of the said market Committee, the services of the appellant as well as  the other Supervisors were regularised with effect  from 23.12.81  pursuant  to  the Resolution No.139/84-84  of  the Market  Committee dated 21.7.84.  Thereafter, the  Thanjavur Market  Committee  by  its   Resolution  No.229/84-85  dated 22.9.84  declared the probation of the appellant with effect from  24.3.83 (forenoon).  It appears that the Government of Tamil  Nadu  issued orders in GOMs No.194 Agriculture  dated March  15, 1991 treating each District Market Committee as a separate   unit.   As  an  upshot  of  that  order  of   the Government,  the  Director of Agricultural Marketing  issued proceeding  on  June  28,1991 purporting to  repatriate  the appellant  to  his  parent Market Committee,  Madurai.   The appellant   made  a  representation  to  the   Director   of Agricultural Marketing against his repatriation and by order dated  9.7.91  in  Proceeding No.A4.16887/91,  the  Director cancelled  his earlier proceedings of 28.6.91.   Challenging

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the  correctness  of  the  proceeding   of  July  9,   1991, respondents  4  to 8 herein filed O.A.No.2605/91 before  the Tamil  Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras.  The O.A.   was allowed  by the Tribunal on 19.6.92.  The appellant assailed the  validity of the order of the Tribunal before this Court in  Civil Appeal No.4221/93.  By judgment and order of  this Court  dated  September 7, 1994, the order of  the  Tribunal dated 19.6.92 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal  for fresh disposal in accordance with law.   After remand,  on  January  11,1995,   the  Tribunal  allowed  the application   of  the  said   respondents  holding  that  on appointment  as Supervisor of Thanjavur Market Committee the appellant  did  not  acquire any right  and  his  subsequent regularisation  and completion of probation did not make him the  regular incumbent of Thanjavur Market Committee.   That order  is  the  subject matter of the present  appeal.   The contentions   of  Mr.T.   Raja,   learned  counsel  for  the appellant,  are  that  the appointment of the  appellant  by transfer  as  Supervisor  under  Rule   203  of  Tamil  Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the 1962 Rules’)  and his subsequent regularisation would make him an employee  of  the  Thanjavur Market Committee and  for  that reason  declaration of completion of probation was also made by the Committee.  The appellant was appointed as Supervisor by  the  competent authority in 1983 and that was  saved  by amendment  of  Rules in GOMs No.206  Agriculture  Department dated 18.3.91.  Therefore, the repatriation of the appellant to  the parent Market Committee, Madurai was wholly  illegal which  was  rightly  withdrawn by the Director as  such  the impugned  order  of the Tribunal is liable to be set  aside. Learned  counsel  appearing  for the  official  respondents, respondents  1-  3,  submitted  that  the  transfer  of  the appellant from Market Committee, Madurai to Thanjavur Market Committee  by  the Director did not make him an employee  of Thanjavur  Market Committee;  he continued to have his  lien in   the   Market  Committee,   Madurai;    his   subsequent regularisation  on the post of Supervisor and declaration of probation by Thanjavur Market Committee would not confer any right,  whatsoever, on him.  The Director committed error in withdrawing  the  order  of repatriation  and  the  Tribunal corrected   the   illegality  by   allowing  the  O.A.    of respondents 4 to 8 herein.  Though service of notice of this appeal  on  respondents 4 to 8, petitioners in the O.A.,  is reported  to be complete, yet they did not enter appearance. The  short question that arises for consideration is whether in  the  circumstances  of  this case on  his  transfer  and appointment as Supervisor of the Thanjavur Market Committee, the  appellant became the employee of that Committee.   Here it  may be useful to refer to the relevant Rules.  Under the 1962 Rules each Market Committee was a separate unit.  While so,  by  order  issued  in GOMs  No.2535  Agriculture  dated 17.11.81, the Government of Tamil Nadu declared the services of  the  employees  working  in   the  Market  Committee  as Government  servants  w.e.f 17.11.81.  Rule 202 of the  said Rules  empowered  the Director of Agricultural Marketing  to transfer  employees  of  one market Committee to  any  other market Committee.  In 1982-83, there were 17 vacant posts of Supervisors  in  Thanjavur Market Committee.   The  Director having  called  for options of the eligible candidates  from various  district  Market Committees transferred 17  persons including  the  appellant  from   their  respective   market Committees to Thanjavur Market Committee for being appointed as  Supervisors.   Accordingly  under Rule 203 of  the  said Rules,   the  Thanjavur  Market   Committee  appointed   the appellant  and  others as Supervisors and issued  orders  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

18.3.83.   On  26.7.84  the services of the  appellant  were regularised  by Thanjavur Market Committee and on 1.10.84 he was declared to have completed his probation satisfactorily. Under  the said Rules the Market Committee was competent  to appoint  Supervisors  of  that  Committee.   Therefore,  the appointment of the appellant as Supervisor was in accordance with  Rules  then  in force.  It is no doubt true  that  the transfer  of the appellant was subject to certain conditions but  in view of his subsequent appointment as Supervisor  of Thanjavur Market Committee and thereafter his regularisation on  satisfactory  completion of probation, those  conditions would  not  affect his tenure.  In 1989, the  Government  of Tamil Nadu decided to constitute separate service called the Tamil  Nadu  Agricultural Marketing Subordinate Service  and made  Rules  governing  that  service.   In  GOMs  No.   470 Agriculture   dated   5.7.89  the   rules  for  Tamil   Nadu Agricultural    Marketing    Subordinate    Service    Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘special Rules) were issued. Thus  a  centralised  Tamil   Nadu  Agricultural   Marketing Subordinate  Service  was  constituted  of  which  all   the employees  of  district  market   Committee  were   members. Consequently  the  employees of district  market  Committees ceased  to be employees in separate units of District Market Committees.   By  Rule  2,  the  Special  Rules  were  given retrospective effect from November 17,1981.  The Director of Agricultural Marketing was made the appointing authority for the  post of Supervisor under the Special Rules.  Since  the special  rules  were framed in 1989 and given  retrospective effect  from 17.11.81 and in the meanwhile many appointments were  made  by the Market Committees, the Government  issued orders first inserting Rule 7 in the special Rules providing that nothing contained in those rules shall adversely affect the appointments and promotions made under the provisions of 1962  Rules on and from 17.11.81 till 4.7.89.  Further  Rule 10  was  added in the special Rules to ensure  that  nothing contained   in  those  Rules   shall  adversely  affect  any appointment  and promotion already made under the provisions of  the 1962 Rules.  In view of Rules 7 and 10, referred  to above,  the  appointment of the appellant by  the  Thanjavur Market  Committee which was valid under the 1962 Rules  then in  force, remained valid even under the special Rules.   It appears  that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders  in GOMs  194  on 15.3.91 directing that each  Market  Committee shall  be  treated as separate unit.  The appellant who  was already   working  as  a   Supervisor  in  Thanjavur  Market Committee  on  March  15,1991 was entitled  to  continue  as Supervisor  of  that Market Committee and he could not  have been  treated as employee of the District Market  Committee, Madurai   in   which  he   was  initially  appointed.    His repatriation  to  the District Market Committee, Madurai  on the  ground  that  it was his parent  Committee  was  wholly illegal  for  the  simple  reason that  after  formation  of centralised Marketing Subordinate Service the concept of the parent   committee   and  the    borrowing   Committee   got obliterated.   The  order of the Director  transferring  the appellant  to  District  Market Committee,  Madurai  on  the ground  that it was his parent Committee, in the absence  of any  specific  rule  authorising him to do so,  was  clearly illegal.    The  Director  was,   therefore,  justified   in withdrawing  the illegal order.  The Tribunal, in our  view, erred  in  not  treating the appellant as  employee  of  the Thanjavur   Market  Committee  and  in  holding   that   his promotion,  regularisation  and declaration of probation  as Supervisor  by the Thanjavur Market Committee did no  confer any  right  on  him.  Mr.A.  Mariarputham,  learned  counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

appearing  for  the  respondents,  however,  relied  on  the judgment of this Court in M/s.Onkarlal Nandlal vs.  State of Rajasthan & Anr.  [1985 (4) SCC 404].  That case arose under the  Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.  The question was whether  the sale  in question was inter-State sale or intra-State  sale. The  assessee  purchased  poppy seeds  against  Declarations under Form ST 17 which indicated that the purchases were for the purpose of resale within the State.  But the sale of the goods though inside the State, was effected in the course of inter-State  trade  and  commerce.  The  expression  ‘resale within  the  State’  in Form No.ST 17, it was held  by  this Court,  must  be  read  in the light of  Explanation  II  to Section  2(o)  of  the  State   Act.   The  Explanation   by incorporating  the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, provided as to when a sale shall be deemed to be  a  sale  within  the  State.   It  was  laid  down  that Explanation  II  to Section 2(o) of the State Act had to  be interpreted  as  if  Section  4(2) of the  Central  Act  was written  out  verbatim in that Explanation and there was  no occasion or need to refer to the Central Act from which that incorporation  was made or to its purpose or context.   That judgment   is  of  no  assistance   to  the  respondent   in interpreting  the  1962  Rules  or   special  Rules  or  the amendment  made to those Rules.  For the above reasons,  the judgment and order under appeal is set aside.  The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances of the case without costs.