K. KARUPPANNAN versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 04-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K. KARUPPANNAN 
v. 
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT 
OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 1999 
[S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ~] 
I 
Service Law-Centralised service-Implication of-Appellant, 
appointed as Jr. Assistant at Market Committee, 'X'-Transferred as 
C Supervisor to Market Committee, 'Y'-Services of appellant regularised after 
probation w.ef 17.3.1983-Later on by way of Statutory Rules framed on 
5. 7.1989 centralised service for all the Market Committees constituted-
However, on 15.3.1991 by way of another notification, Government treating 
each Market Committee as a separate unit-Later on, appellant sought to 
D be repatriated to his parent Market Committee-Held, that appellant being 
an employee of centralised service cannot be transferred back to his parent 
unit on the grounds that the two units were separate-Thus his repatriation 
was illegal for the reason that after formation of centralised service, the 
concept of parent and borrowing Market Committees obliterated-Tamil 
Nadu Agricultural Marketing Subordinate Rules, 1989, Rules 2, 7 and JO-
E Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing Subordinate Rules, 1962, Rules 202 and 
203-Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1959-Transfer-
Repatriation. 
F 
Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1959 (the 
"Act") and Tamil Nadu Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1962 (1962 
Rules,) each Market Committee was to be treated as a separate unit. By an 
order dated 17.11.1981, the Government declared the services of the 
employees working in the Market Committee as government servants. Rules 
202 of the said rules empowered the Director of Agricultural Marketing to 
transfer employees of one Market Committee to another Market Committee. 
In 1989, the Government decided to constitute separate service called the 
G Tamil Nadu Agricultural Marketing Subordinate Service Rules ("Special 
Rules"). Thus a centralised Agricultural Marketing Subordinate Service 
was constituted of all the employees of the District Market Committee. 
Consequently the employees of the district market committees ceased to be 
employees in separate units District Market Committees. The Director of . 
Agriculture marketing was made the appointing authority for the post of 
H Supervisors under the Special Rules. Since the Special Rules were framed 
998 
-
K. KARUPPANNAN v. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU 
999 
in 1989 with retrospective effect from 17.11.1981. Government issued orders A 
first inserting Rule 7 in the Special Rules providing that nothing contained 
in those rules should adversely affect the appointments and promotions made 
under the provisions of 1962 Rules on and from 17.11.1981till4.7.1989. 
Further Rule 10 was added in the Special Rules to ensure that nothing 
contained in those Rules should affect any appointment and promotion already 
made under the provisions of the 1962 Rules. The appellant, who was appointed B 
as Junior Assistant at Market Committee 'X' was transferred to Market 
Committee 'Y' as Supervisor. The service of the appellant was later on 
regularised by the said Market Committee w.e.f. 23.12.1981. The Market 
Committee 'Y' declared the probation of the appellant w.e.f. 24.3.1983. By 
GOMs 194 dated 15.03.1991 each Market Committee was to be treated as C 
a separate unit. Later on, Director of Market Committee issued proceedings 
to repatriate the appellant to his parent Market Committee 'X'. On the 
representation of the appellant, the Director cancelled the earlier proceedings 
to repatriate the appellant to his parent market committee. Respondents 4 
to 8 challenged the order of the Director before the Administrative Tribunal 
and the same was allowed by it. The said order of the Tribunal was assailed D 
before this Court-The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the case was 
remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After 
remand, the Tribunal allowed the application of Respondents 4 to 8 by holding 
that on appointment as Supervisor at Market Committee 'Y', the appellant 
did not acquire any right and his subsequent regularisation and completion 
of probation did not make him the regular incumbent. Hence this appeal. 
E 
It was contended by the appellant that the appointment of the appellant 
as Supervisor under Rule 203 of 1962 Rules and his subsequent 
regularisation after completion of probation would make him an employee of 
Market Committee 'Y' and, therefore, repatriation of the appellant to the 
parent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.