WA/2877/2026 of Manoj.M Vs K.Prema on 30 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been instituted by third parties to the writ proceedings, aggrieved by the impugned common writ order dated 26.11.2021.

2. The contesting respondents / writ petitioners, holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistants filed writ petition challenging the amendment of ad-hoc rules published for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II in G.O.Ms. No.147, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department (AH1-2), dated 14.08.2025. Appellants before this Court are holding the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and their next avenue for promotion is to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-I. The impugned amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 14.08.2025 was notified by the Government in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 14.08.2025. Regarding the amendment of qualification made to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II, the amendment reads as follows:

Sl.No . (1) Method of Recruitment (2) Qualifications (3)

1. By direct recruitment

(a) A degree from any recognized University.

(b) A Pass in the higher secondary course with Biology or Botany or Zoology as one of the subjects.

2. By promotion

(a) (i) A degree from any recognized

University

(ii) A Pass in the higher secondary course with Biology or Botany or Zoology as one of the subjects.

(b) Must possess 5 years regular service in the Department.

(c) Must have completed probation in

the

feeder

category.

(d) Should not have completed 56 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection is made.

3. Originally, the educational qualification for the post was S.S.L.C., which was subsequently enhanced to +2. The said qualification was further enhanced to a Degree from any recognized University. This subsequent enhancement of qualification from +2 to a Degree was under challenge in the writ proceedings.

4. This Court is of the considered view that maintainability of the writ petitions at the first instance is to be considered in the context of the impugned amendment of enhancing the educational qualification to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II. In this regard, writ petitioners are serving as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistants. These two posts are distinct and different from that of the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and Grade-I. The qualification for Assistant Veterinary Surgeon is Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences, which is a medical course. Qualification for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant is a non-medical qualification. Therefore, nomenclature to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and Grade-I are not connected with appointment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, which requires a medical qualification as per the Service Rules in force.

5. However, the contentions of the respondents / writ petitioners are that these Livestock Inspectors are going to be promoted to the post of Assistant Directors and in such circumstances, they will supersede the Assistant Veterinary Surgeons in seniority. In other words, based on an apprehension regarding further promotion, writ petitions have been instituted challenging the educational qualification enhanced by way of an amendment, to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II. However, to support the said contention, no rules have been produced.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would contend that promotional avenues for Livestock Inspector Grade-II and

Grade-I as well as to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon are distinct and different. Therefore, the very apprehension is baseless.

7. May that as it be, question arises whether the respondents / writ petitioners are aggrieved persons or not. Secondly, enhancement of educational qualification to a particular post is a policy decision and the prerogative of the Government. The respondents / writ petitioners holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Husbandry Assistants cannot be construed as aggrieved persons and enhancement of educational qualification by way of an amendment to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II would not provide a cause for institution of writ proceedings. The entire gamut of arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents are merely based on presumptions and assumptions, and not based on service conditions or service rights attached to these posts.

8. A writ would be entertainable, if service rights or service conditions of an employee is infringed or implemented in violation of the Service Rules. In the present case, amendment to the ad-hoc rules was made to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and the writ petitioners are holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistant and the rules governing those posts are different.

Enhancement of qualification is for appointment to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II. The writ petitioners working in the cadre of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon are already working in a higher post than that of the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II. Therefore, they cannot be construed as aggrieved persons nor would a cause of action arise for institution of writ proceedings challenging the enhancement of qualification.

9. Article 309 of the Constitution of India enumerates that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State”.

10. The main contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that enhancement of qualification is in violation of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. Section 30 relates to rights of persons who are enrolled on the Indian Veterinary Practitioners Register and Section 30 reads as follows: “30. Right of persons who are enrolled on the Indian veterinary practitioners register.

- No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall-- (a) hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) practice veterinary medicine in any State:”

11. The above provision relates to registration of Veterinary Practitioners. The proviso to Section 30 stipulates that the State Government may, by order, permit a person holding a diploma or certificate of Veterinary Supervisor, Stockman or Stock Assistant (by whatever name called) issued by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (by whatever name called) of any State or any veterinary institution in India to render, under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, minor veterinary services.

12. The very object of the above proviso is to ensure that the registered veterinary practitioner gets assistance of a person holding a diploma or certificate for minor veterinary services, which may be done by an order of the State Government.

13. May that as it be, Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act has no application in respect of appointments made to various posts in the Department of Animal Husbandry in Government of Tamil Nadu. There are several posts constituted for efficient functioning of the Veterinary Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. Different qualifications are prescribed to suit the job responsibilities. It is a policy decision of the Government and its prerogative. High Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review is not expected to issue directions to prescribe a particular qualification to a particular post/cadre.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that enhancement of qualification to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II is in violation as per Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act. First of all, service rules and the conditions applicable to a particular post is to be considered by the Court. Section 30 of the Act provides registration of a veterinary practitioner and it is not directly connected with a Government appointment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistants or Livestock Inspector Grade-II or Grade-I. There is no specific qualification prescribed under Section 30 of the Act for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II or Grade-I. To become a veterinary practitioner, a person must possess a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and that is only for registration.

Therefore, very reliance placed on Section 30 to assail the enhancement of qualification for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II is untenable and not connected with the service conditions of the post.

15. Prescription of educational qualification, age and other criteria for appointment to a particular post / cadre in Government service is the prerogative of the Government and a policy decision. The limited power of judicial review may be exercised by the High Court, if such prescription is directly violative of any statute or rules in force or ultra vires to the Constitution.

16. In the present case, respondents / writ petitioners cannot be construed as aggrieved persons. Therefore, writ petitions per se are not maintainable. They are challenging the enhanced qualification made to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II, despite the fact that they are working in the cadre of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistant. These two pots are unconnected with the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II or Grade-I. Therefore, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II would have not implication nor infringe the service rights of the respondents/writ petitioners.

17. Regarding the apprehension raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, promotion per se is not a vested right. Consideration for promotion is a right of an employee. Whenever a panel of persons fit for promotion to a higher post is prepared, then alone a right would arise for consideration. However, in the present case, service rules for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II, Grade-I and for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistant are distinct and different. Therefore, enhancement of educational qualification for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II would not affect the service conditions or the promotional opportunities of employees working in the cadre of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and Animal Husbandry Assistant. In the case of Md.Firoz Mansuri vs. The State of Bihar1, the Apex Court held as follows: ...56. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Question of equivalence will

MANU/SC/0070/2026

also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same.57. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das, MANU/SC/0823/2020 : 2020:INSC:629 : (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the employer.”

18. Writ Court allowed the writ petitions mainly on the ground that the amendment issued enhancing educational qualification from +2 to Degree is violative of Section 30 of the Act. Secondly, the Writ Court held that prescription of higher qualification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Both the grounds have no application on the facts of the present case. Respondents / writ petitioners are not aggrieved persons. Their service conditions and service conditions attached to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and Grade-I are distinct and different. Therefore, the issue relating to arbitrariness does not arise at all. Ground raised regarding Section 30 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that it is only for registration of veterinary practitioners and it is not in any way connected with the Government services and the service condition stipulated for a particular post. Even then the qualification of degree prescribed for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and

Grade-I cannot be construed as violative of Section 30 of the Act. The proviso clause contemplates that State Government ‘may’, by order, permit a person holding a diploma or certificate of Veterinary Supervisor, Stockman or Stock Assistant issued by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry.. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take a policy decision to prescribe qualification for various posts constituted in the Department of Animal Husbandry.

19. It has been consistently held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. In this context, the power of the High Court is limited. The Constitutional Courts time and again have reiterated that interference in policy decisions or interference with the routine administration of Government departments would not fall under the realm of judicial review. Setting aside the enhanced qualification would set a wrong precedent.

20. As specialized courses are being introduced by the Universities across the Country and numerous degrees, diplomas and various other courses are emerging, providing multiple opportunities to the youth of our great nation, prescription or enhancement of qualification then and there is part of development and any such development need not be

interfered with by the Courts. Whenever the veterinary sciences and its research grows and advancements are made in providing treatment to the animals and to improve the department, qualifications are enhanced and specilised qualification are prescribed in the Rules to provide better and efficient services through Animal Husbandry Department by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, Courts, setting aside the enhanced qualification will not only set a wrong precedent but would affect the development activities in a particular departments.

21. Initially, long before, the qualification for the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II was S.S.L.C. It was enhanced to +2. Presently, it has been enhanced to Degree. This is a development took place, which cannot be said to be bad in law. Though the writ petitioners have raised several grounds which all are unconnected, since the nomenclature as well as the qualification prescribed for different posts cannot be questioned by an employee, who is not working in a particular cadre. Therefore, findings of the Writ Court is running counter to the service Rules applicable to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II and Grade-I and that apart, not in consonance with the Service jurisprudence.

22. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has issued notification inviting applications for selection to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II based on the amended qualification of degree. However, a subsequent notification was issued on 22.12.2025 withdrawing the notification in respect of post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II. Thus, TNPSC is at liberty to issue a fresh notification for selection to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II as per the amended qualification issued in G.O.Ms. No.147, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department (AH1-2), dated 14.08.2025.

23. Consequently, the writ common order impugned dated 26.11.2025 passed in WP.Nos.38989, 39973, 42364 and 36820 of 2025 is set aside and the Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. GD WA No. 2877 of 2026 AND WA NO. 2882 OF 2026,WA NO. 2884 OF 2026,WA NO. 2883 OF 2026 30-09-2026