WA/2596/2026 of The State of Tamil Nadu Vs D. Sivakumar on 25 August 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) The present Writ Appeal has been instituted, challenging Writ Order dated 08.01.2025 in W.P.No.18785 of 2019. State is the appellant before this Court.

2. Facts in brief are that 1st respondent was working as Sanitary Inspector at Gudalur Municipality, Nilgiris District. Sanitary Inspectors and Health Inspectors Grade-I from Health and Family Welfare Department possessing B.Sc., degree were fit for Food Safety Officers in the Food Safety Department constituted under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Central Act No.34 of 2006) (in short the 'Act, 2006'). The said Act and Rules came into effect from 05.08.2011.

3. On constitution of new Department, employees from Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Corporations and Municipalities were posted on deputation to implement the provisions of the Act, 2006. However, during the relevant point of time, when these employees were deputed, service Rules were not framed and by virtue of Government Order, employees were posted on deputation. 1st respondent was also deputed from Municipality to Food Safety Department.

4. Subsequently, Government framed Rules for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officers in exercise of powers conferred under the Act, 2006 and Food Safety Officers were recruited directly. For direct recruitment, qualifications prescribed are higher than that of qualifications possessed by deputed employees. As per the qualification prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer under Service Rules, these deputed employees were not qualified. Thus, decision was taken by Food Safety Department to cancel deputation, enabling deputed employees to rejoin in their parent Departments. Since these employees were willing to continue in the Food Safety Department, they filed Writ Petitions, challenging the order of repatriation. Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 04.10.2024 passed in W.A.No.1406 of 2024.

5. Perusal of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 04.10.2024 would show that 1st respondent in the said case was repatriated on the ground of deficiency in service. Court rendered a finding that deficiency in service may not be a ground to repatriate 1st respondent therein, since no opportunity was given to 1st respondent in the said case. Since facts in the present case are distinguishable, the said judgment is of no avail to the 1st respondent herein to succeed in the writ petition filed by him.

6. Appellants would mainly contend that Food Safety Officers were drawn to Food Safety Department on redeployment basis from Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Municipal Administration, Town Panchayat and Chennai Corporation. Food Safety Officers were appointed from Food Inspectors, who have qualification of B.Sc., Chemistry and as Degree with Chemistry as one of the subjects, which qualification is prescribed in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. All these deputed Food Safety Officers drawn from other Departments have been originally recruited through various recruitment methods, appointed through different modes with different educational qualifications to suit the post for which they were recruited. Their conditions of appointment, work nature, work experience as Food Inspector and pay structure are entirely different.

7. Government subsequently framed Rules in G.O.Ms.No.438, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 24.09.2018 for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officers. Accordingly, the method of appointment to the post of Food Safety Officers is direct recruitment mode only. Saving Clause provided in G.O.Ms.No.438 cannot be construed as an absorption order. It protects the existing Food Safety Officers to perform their duties as per Act, 2006 irrespective of their educational qualification.

8. The word “integration” mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.347 of Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 22.12.2011 has been erroneously interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 04.10.2024, by holding as under: “9. From the proceedings of the 1st appellant dated 20.09.2011, the 1st 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 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 1st appellant Department. Therefore, the contention of the appellants cannot be countenanced.

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 1st appellant to the 2nd 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 1st respondent/writ petitioner was also holding lien to conclude that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner was bound to join the parent Department, namely, 2nd respondent herein, is not acceptable.”

9. Deputation of an employee would not confer any right to seek permanent absorption in the deputed Department. Deputations were made from various Departments, Corporations and Municipalities to Food Safety Department on its constitution in order to meet out exigencies. Soon after Adhoc Rules were framed for recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officers, deputed employees were repatriated to their parents Departments. As per Adhoc Rules, mode of recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officers is only through direct recruitment. Therefore, deputed employees cannot claim right for permanent absorption in violation of Adhoc Rules framed for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officers.

10. Deputation or repatriation of an employee would not cause prejudice to service conditions of employee. Deputation per se is not a service condition and made in order to meet out certain administrative exigencies and in the public interest. Therefore, service conditions of employees are not violated nor infringed. Thus, claim of 1st respondent seeking permanent absorption per se is unsustainable. Employees, on repatriation will have to work in their respective parent Departments. Therefore, none of the service conditions of deputed employees are violated. The very basis for repatriation would not provide cause of action to institute writ proceedings.

11. Government has taken a policy decision in the interest of public administration and to implement the Act, 2006 in an effective manner and decided to depute employees from various Departments. Soon after Adhoc Rules were framed and regular recruitments are made, deputed employees are repatriated to their parent Departments. The very action of Government, repatriating deputed employees to their parent Departments would not provide a cause for filing writ petitions.

12. The basis on which issues were considered by Writ Court is not in consonance with the established principles of service jurisprudence. Pertinently, seniority and lien of deputed employees are maintained in their parents Departments. Therefore, their services are no way affected.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J. AR

13. In view of the above discussions, impugned order of Writ Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of Writ Court dated 08.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.18785 of 2019 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR To: The Commissioner, Tirupur City Municipal Corporation, Tirupur, Tirupur District.