Holding

The Court held that the integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the Health Inspector Grade I cadre was complete, and any denial of seniority or promotion to them under G.O. No. 382 (2007) violated Articles 14 and 16, thus those provisions were struck down.

Summary

The case concerned the integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the Tamil Nadu Health Department as Health Inspectors Grade I. The State issued G.O. No. 320 (1997) re-designating Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspector Grade IB and later G.O. No. 382 (2007) attempted to grant them seniority and pay but placed them at the bottom of the seniority list and barred promotion to Block Health Supervisor. The petitioners argued that this discrimination violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the statutory rules, the effect of the Government Orders, and the principle that once posts are merged, the "birth‑mark" of the original cadre must be obliterated. It held that the integration was complete, the qualifications were not a bar to re-designation, and the lower seniority and promotion restrictions were unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court struck down the impugned clauses of G.O. No. 382 and ordered that the former Leprosy Inspectors be given seniority from 1 August 1997 and be treated on par with other Health Inspectors Grade I. All the civil appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of G.O. No. 382 (2007) clauses that placed re‑designated Health Inspectors Grade IB at the bottom of the seniority list and barred their promotion.
Whether the integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the Health Inspector Grade I cadre was complete and required equal treatment.
Whether the relaxation of qualification requirements by executive orders could override statutory rules.
Whether the denial of seniority and promotion violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309
Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services Rules, 1955s. Rule 48

Subjects

service lawpromotionsenioritymergerintegrationconstitutional equalityArticles 14 and 16Health InspectorLeprosy Inspector

Judgment

(2013] 13 S.C.R. 291

I .'!( S. SIVAGURU A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4483-4485 of 2013)
MAY 07, 2013
B
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

Service Law:

Promotion/Seniority - Merger/integration of the posts c
under different Schemes into 'multipurpose Health Workers'
- The posts of Health Workers were subsequently categorized
into 'Health Inspector Grade I' and 'Health Inspector Grade //'
- Health Inspector Grade I/ promoted as Health Inspector
Grade I by upgradation of the posts as a one time measure D
- By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 on integration of 'Leprosy
¥
Eradication Scheme' with 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme', the 'Leprosy Inspectors' were re-designated as
'Health Inspector Grade IB' and the existing 'Health Inspectors
Grade·/' were re-designated as 'Health Inspectors Grade IA -
E
By G.O. No. 382 dated 12.10.2007 the post of Health
Inspectors Grade IA and IB were re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade I' and the Health Inspectors of Grade IB were
-~
en-block placed below the Health Inspectors Grade IA in the
seniority list - Denial of seniority to the re-designated Health
Inspectors Grade IB - Propriety of - Held: Denial of seniority F
to the re-designated Health Inspectors Grade 18 was violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - The birth mark of
Leprosy Inspector got ob/iterated with its initial integration -
Hence there could not have been further distinction in the
,}-- cadre of Health Inspector Grade I - The erstwhile Leprosy G
Inspectors/Health Inspectors Grade 18/Hea/th Inspector Grade
I are entitled to their seniority from the date of initial integration
i.e. w.e.f 1st August, 1997.
291
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A By order dated 29.9.1982, the Health Workers in the --X i
Health Department (Multi Purpose Health Workers and
'Unipurpose Health Workers') were integrated into one a
'Multipurpose Health Workers'. Thereafter in 1988, the
employees engaged in the Family Welfare were also
B integrated therein.

In 1989 statutory Rules were framed which were
made applicable to 'Multipurpose Health Workers
Scheme'. By the Rules Class I and Class II posts were \-
notified as 'Multipurpose Health Assistant' and
C 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors'. The Rules prescribed
the essential qualifications for 'Multipurpose Health
Assistants'.

By G.O. No. 593 dated 11.9.1995 categorized
D 'Multipurpose Health Supervisors' and 'Multipurpose
Health Assistants' as Health Inspectors Grade I and Grade -+
II. Thereby Health Assistants/Health Inspectors Grade II
were to be promoted as Health Supervisors/Health
Inspectors Grade I by upgradation of post as a one time
E measure, provided they had served on the post for 20
years and had crossed the age of 50 years.

By G.O. No. 320 dated 27.6.1997 'l-eprosy Eradication
Scheme' was also integrated with 'Multipurpose Health t-
F Workers Scheme'. After the integration, the existing
'Health Inspector Grade I' was re-designated as 'Health
Inspector Grade IA' and the Leprosy Inspectors were re-
designated as 'Health Inspector Grade IB.
In 2006, there was proposal by the Government to re-
G designate 'Health Inspectors Grade IB' as 'Health ~
Inspectors Grade I' after imparting one week in-service
training to them. The proposal was accepted by G.O. No.
382 dated 12.10.2007, and as per Clauses 4 and 5 of Para
6 of the G.O., they were en-block placed below the
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 293

existing Health Inspectors Grade I, in the Seniority List A
and were to get promotion to the next post only after the
last person in the existing seniority .List of Health
Inspector Grade I. The ~aras 4 and 5 of Claus.e 6 of G.O.
No. 382 were challenged by the re-designated Health
Inspectors Grade I (employees of erstwhile Leprosy B
Scheme). The exi.sting Health Inspectors (Grade I) also
challenged the G.O. No. 382.

--j State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. No. 73 dated
26.2.2008 whereby the department was permitted to
implement orders of High Court dated 21.11.2007 c
whereby it was held that only those Health Inspectors
Grade I, who had 'Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate'
were entitled to be considered for promotion.
Thereafter the Health Inspectors Grade I, who D
..r- possessed 'Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate' or
'Multipurpose Health Course Certificate' filed a batch of
writ petitions praying for restraining the department from
drawing the panel for the post of 'Block Health
Supervisors Grade I', who did not possess either of the E
above-mentioned two certificates. They took the plea that
the Unipurpose Health Workers were promoted as Health
Inspectors Grade I as a one time measure on completing
.·-1' 20 years of s3rvice and hence were not entitled to further
promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor. Single F
Judge of High Court allowed the petitions. The erstwhile
Unipurpose Health Workers, not in possession of the
requisite certificates, challenged the G.O. No. 73, and also
filed writ appeal against the order of Single Judge of High
~~
Court. Division Bench of High Court held that in the Rules,
there is no embargo on Health Inspector Grade I, who did G
not possess requisite certificates, from promotion to the
next post and hence quashed the G.O. No. 73. Hence the
present appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1. The qualification of having passed the one
. year long term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)
Training Certificate or Sanitary Course Certificate with
short term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate were the statutory requirements for recruitment
B and appointment on the post of Health Inspector Grade
II. These qualifications would, therefore, be possessed by
some of the incumbents on the promotional post of
Health Inspector Grade II being Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor/ Health Inspector Grade I as well. Even in the
C cadre of Health Inspector Grade II, there were many
incumbents who did not possess these qualifications.
Only the category of employees i.e., the direct recruit
Health Inspectors Grade II possessed the aforesaid
qualifications. The Unipurpose Health Workers
consisting of Health Workers, Cholera Workers and
0
Vaccinators, also had entered the cadre of Health
Inspector Grade II without such qualifications. The
requirement for having the aforesaid qualifications on the
post of Health Inspector Grade Ii was waived by way of
order G.O. Ms. No. 1936 dated 29th September, 1982.
E Thus, it is evident that the possession of the· two
aforesaid qualifications was no longer considered a
requirement for appointment on the post of Health
Inspector Grade II. It is also a matter of record that the
possession of the aforesaid qualifications was not
F prescribed for promotion to the post of Multi Purpose
Health Supervisor/Health Inspector Grade I. Notification
Ill issued under G.O.Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989
provides for the rules applicable to the post of Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor. [Para 38] [325-H; 326-A-F]
G
Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1968)
1 SCR 111 - distinguished.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, many Health
Inspectors Grade II had been promoted as Health
H Inspectors Grade I, without possessing the aforesaid
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 295

7 qualifications; The Sanitary Inspector Course was A
rescinded much prior to the issuance of the G.O. Ms. No.
320 dated 27th June, 1997, thu~ there was no opportunity
for the Leprosy Inspectors to qualify for the aforesaid
Certificate. Yet the aforesaid G.O. provided that since the
Leprosy Inspectors do not possess the aforesaid B
qualifications, they shall be designated as Health
Inspector Grade 18 on integration with the post of Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor I Health Inspector Grade I. In
-f view of the aforesaid developments, Leprosy Inspectors
were fully eligible to be re-designated as Multi Purpose c
Health Supervisor I Health Inspector Grade ·1. [Para 39]
[327-C-E]

3. The G.O.Ms: No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not
have the effect of amending the rules. The aforesai~ G.O.
also did not supplant the statutory provisions. It is also D
further clear that there was no relaxation of the
qualifications on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Assistant (Health· inspector Grade II) or on the post of
Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade
I}. Therefore, upon integration of Leprosy Inspectors into E
the cadre of Multi Purpose Health Supervisors, the further
categorization into Health Inspector Grade IA and Health
Inspector Grade 18 was wholly unjustified. It had no
. -1
rational nexus with any object sought to be achieved, and
'' therefore, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution F
of India. [Para 40] [327-F-H; 328-A]

4. Injustice had been caused to the Leprosy
Inspectors at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th
.. ,)r June, 1997 was issued, which has been rectified by
issuing G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007. The G
qualification of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)
Training Certificate, the qualification of Sanitary Course
Certificate with Short term Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Certificate were not the required
H
l
'

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

qualification for appointment as Multi Purpose Health ~
A
Supervisors. These were also not the qualifications which
were required for being appointed as a Leprosy Inspector.
However, even though by the 1997 integration through ~

G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, the Leprosy
B Inspectors were equated with Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors, both categories were not given the same
designation. The Multi Purpose Health Supervisors were
designated as Health Inspector Grade IA, while Leprosy '
Inspectors were designated as Health Inspector Grade IB. ~
The aforesaid categorization of Leprosy Inspectors as
c
Health Inspector Grade IB was founded on a fallacy. It
was wrongly assumed by the State that Leprosy
Inspectors could not be designated as Multi Purpose
Health Supervisors as they did not possess the
necessary qualification for the basic post of Health
D Assistants, i.e., Health Inspector Grade II. The mere fact __,.
· that Leprosy Inspectors were not placed in the feeder
cadre of Health Inspector Grade II makes it evident that
they were not required to possess the qualifications of
the basic posts. They were in fact from the very inception
E being equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I). It was not a case
of upgradation of the post of Leprosy Inspector to the
post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. The two posts 'f--
were equated. Leprosy Inspectors were transferred and
F brought under the control of Director of Public Health
and Preventive Medicine for programme implementation.
On transfer, they were re-designated as Health Inspector
Grade IB. lnspite of the fact that the aforesaid two
qualifications of one year long term Multi Purpose Health --/...., ..
G Workers (Male) Training Certificate and Sanitary Course
Certificate with short term Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Certificate were not the essential
qualifications for appointment as Health Inspector Grade
I, the post of Health Inspector Grade I was unnecessarily
H split into Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade IB. [Para
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 297

43] [330-A-H; 331-A] A

5. There was complete integration of Leprosy Control
Scheme with Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme with
effect from 1st July, 1997 and the process of integration
was actually completed by 1st August, 1997. The High B
Court, therefore, rightly gave the benefit of equation of
post of Health Inspector Grade -IB with that that of Health
Inspector Grade IA from the date of their integration, in
~
1997 •. [Para 44) [331-G; 332-C]

- Union of India & Anr. Vs. P.K. Roy & Ors. (1968) 2 SCR
186 - relied on.
c

6. Having accepted the complete merger of the cadre
of Health Inspector Grade IB with Health Inspector Grade
IA and all being re-designated as Health Inspector Grade D
I, G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007 failed to achieve the intended
result. It still discriminated against the erstwhile Health
Inspector Grade IB, by robbing them of service from 1997
to 2007. They were given the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-
7000 but from the date of the G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007
E
i.e. 12th October, 2007. Further, they were placed en bloc
at the bottom of the seniority list of Health Inspector
Grade I. The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I were
also denied promotion on the post of Block Health
Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant till the last
person in the category of Health Inspector Grade I is F
promoted as Block Health Supervisor. They were given
the alternate route of promotion as Non-Medical
Supervisor and Health Educator, till their turn come;; for
promotion, as per their seniority. [Para 45) [332-D-H]
. _).- G
7. Upon merger of the two posts, it was no longer
permissible to treat the re-designated Health Inspector
Grade IA differently from Health Inspector Grade IB. Since
1997, all incumbents on the posts of Health Inspector
Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB were performing H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A the same duties. There was intermixing of the duties
performed by the two categories of the Health Inspector
Grade IA and 18. Both the posts had lost their· original
identity since 27th June, 1997, and formed one
homogenous cadre. Further, having relaxed the
B qualifications on the basis of their length of service and
experience, they were at par with the Health Inspector
Grade IA. Thereafter, the State was not justified in
denying to the erstwhile Health Inspector Grade 18, the
same treatment as was given to Health Inspector Grade
c IA. Therefore, the respondents could not have been
denied the benefit of service on the post of Health
Inspector Grade I from the date of the initial integration.
[Para 46] [333-A-D]
-
Sub-Inspector Roop/al & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through
D Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 644: 1999 (5)
Suppl. SCR 310 - relied on.

8. Thus, the High Court was completely justified in
quashing Para 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of
E 2007. The High Court has correctly held that the re-
designated Health Inspector Grade I ought to have been
given the same scale of pay as Health Inspector Grade
IA from the date of the merger. In fact, on that date itself,
the two posts should have been re-designated as Health
F Inspector Grade I, enjoying the same scale of pay, as all
incumbents were performing the same duties and
shouldering the same responsibilities. It was not
permissible for the State to treat the re-designated Health
Inspector Grade I differently from the Health Inspector
G Grade IA, on the basis of the initial source of recruitment. ..l...
[Para 47] [333-H; 334-A-C] -
8. Manmad Reddy & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy
& Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 314: 2010 (2) SCR 860; Roshan Lal
Tandon Vs. Union of India (1968) 1 SCR 185 - relied on.
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 299

9. The birth mark was obliterated on the merger of A
the post of Leprosy Inspector with Health Inspector Grade
I. There was no justification of putting Health Inspector
Grade IB in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2010, whilst Health
Inspector Grade IA was placed in the pay scale of
Rs.1350-2200. At the time of integration, both categories B
had to be given the same pay scale i.e. Rs.1350-2200. A
classification based on the birth mark that stood
obliterated after integration of officers, coming from
·-4 different sources into a common cadre/category, would
be wholly unjustified and discriminatory. [Para 48) [334- c
.., D-E]

10. The matter of integration or the fusion of
employees, being one of policy, could not have been
challenged by the employees unless the said decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. None of the D
Government Orders vide which integration was
effectuated, suffers from any of the aforesaid
irregularities. [Para 55) (336-D-E]
Indian Airlines Officers' Assn. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. & E
Ors.: (2007) 1o sec 684: 2001 (8) SCR 655 - relied on.
'
· 11. The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms.
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying promotion of
the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I to the post of
Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal F
Assistant till the last person in the existing list of Health
Inspector Grade I gets promotion as Block Health
Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant, has been
rightly held by the High Court to be violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Para 58] [338-F-H] G

12. The continuance of the existing'promotion
channels as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator
to the re-designated Health Inspector grade I (erstwhile
Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the High
Court cannot be enforced said to have negative equality.
[Para 58] (339-A-8]

13. The High Court has correctly observed that upon
integration and merger into one cadre, the pre-existing
8
length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated
as Health Inspector Grade 18 had to be protected as it can
not be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors
have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority
list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f.
C 27th June, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit ..
has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors /Health
Inspector Grade 18 /Health Inspector Grade I with
retrospective effect. [Para 58] (339-8-D]

D Prafu/la Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
(2003) 11 SCC 614: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 301; Pradip
Chandra Parija & Ors. Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors.
(2002) 1 SCC 1: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 Uday Pratap
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1994 Sup (3) SCC
E 451: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 72; Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 575: 1992 (3)
Suppl. SCR 180; Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of J
& K & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 561: 2000 (3) SCR 807; R. S. Garg
Vs. State of UP. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 430; Secretary, State r
F of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 953; State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Bir
(1998) 6 SCC 165: 1998 (3) SCR 511 Haryana State
Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Gulshan Lal & Ors. (2009) 12
SCC 231: 2009 (8) SCR 950; Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of
G Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. (2007) 15 SCC 406: 2007 (6) SCR 1 ~
1027. ~
'
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J & K & Ors. 1995 Supp. (1)
SCC 188; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur
.Vs. Dau/at Mal Jain & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35: 1996 (6) Suppl.
H SCR 584; Gursharan Singh & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 301

Committee & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 459: 1996 (1) SCR 1154; A
Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009)
15 SCC 705: 2009 (13) SCR 710; Sanjay Kumar Manju/ Vs.
Chairman, UPSC & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 42: 2007 (6) Suppl.
SCR 72 R.K. Sethi & Anr. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
& Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 616: 1997 (1) SCR 616 Laxmi Rattan B
Cotton Mills Limited. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009)
1 SCC 695: 2008 (16) SCR 283; T. Venkateswarulu Vs.
Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams & Ors.
(2009) 1 SCC 546: 2008 (15) SCR 865 Ghulam Rasool Lone
Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 321: C
2009 (10) SCR 591; K.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi & Ors. 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 408: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR
637; SK. Abdul Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
& Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 722: 2007 (12) SCR 940; Govind
Prasad Vs. R. G. Parsad & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 437: 1993 (3)
Suppl. SCR 555; Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of D
Bihar & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 647: 1990 (2) SCR 374;
Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
(2008) 4 SCC 171: 2008 (3) SCR 1035; S.L. Sachdev & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 562: 1981 (1) SCR
97'.1; General Manager, South Central Railway, E
s,ecunderabad & Anr. Vs. V.R. Siddhantti & Ors. (1974) 4
tee 335: 1974 (3) SCR 207; State of Mysore Vs. M.H.
Krishna Murthy & Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 559: 1973 (2) SCR 575;
K. Madhavan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC
566: 1988 (1) SCR 421; R.S. Makashi & Ors. Vs. J.M. Menon F
& Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 379: 1982 (2) SCR 69; Wing
Commander J. Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 2
SCC 116: 1982 (3) SCR 453; Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar
Prasad Mah to & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 655: 2010 (10) SCR 561
- referred to. G
Case Law Reference:

(1968) 1 SCR 111 distinguished Para 38
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 301 referred to Para 21
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 referred to Para 21 ·-...;
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 72 referred to Para 21
1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 180 referred to Para 22
2000 (3) SCR 807 referred to Para 22
B
(2006) 6 sec 430 referred to Para 22
2006 (3) SCR 953 referred to Para 22
. 1998 (3) SCR 511 referred to Para 22
c 2009 (8) SCR 950 referred to Para 22
2007 (6) SCR 1027 referred to Para 23
1995 supp. (1) sec 188 referred to Para 24
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 584 referred to Para 24
D
1996 (1) SCR 1154 referred to Para 24
2009 (13) SCR 710 referred to Para 24
2007 (6) Suppl. SCR referred to Para 25
E 1997 (1) SCR 616 referred to Para 25
2008 (16) SCR 283 referred to Para 26
2008 (15) SCR 865 referred to Para 27
)i....

F 2009 (10) SCR 591 referred to Para 27
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 637 referred to Para 28
2007 (12) SCR 940 referred to Para 28
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 555 referred to Para 28
G
2007 (8) SCR 655 relied on Para 55
1990 (2) SCR 37 4 referred to Para 29
2008 (3) SCR 1035 referred to Para 29

H 2010 (2) SCR 860 referred to Para 48
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 303

1981 (1) SCR 971 referred to Para 30 A

1974 (3) SCR 207 referred to Para 30
1973 (2) SCR 575 referred to Para 30
1988 (1) SCR 421 referred to Para 31
8
1982 (2) SCR 69 referred to Para 31
1982 (3) SCR 453 referred to Para 31
..... 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 310 relied on Para 46
2010 (10) SCR 561 referred to Para 35 c
(1968) 2 SCR 186 relied on Para 37
(1968) 1 SCR 185 relied on Para 48
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. D

-+ 4483-4485 of 2013.

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.07.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of
2006, 34401 of 2007 and 17578 of 2008.
E
WITH

C.A. Nos.4486, 4487, 4488, 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492, 4493,
·~ 4494, 4495, 4496, 4497, 4498, 4499, 4500, 4501-4502 and
4503-4504 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 133 of 2012 F
in C.A. No. 4498 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 145
of 2012 in C.A. No. 4492 of 2013.

P.P. Rao, V. Giri, A.K. Ganguli, P.S. Patwalia, Nalini
Chidambaram, Jaideep Gupta, S. Gomathnayagam, AAG, V.
Mohana, Puja Singh, P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Geetha G
Kovilan, Naresh Kumar, V. Ramasubramanian, T. Harish
Kumar, Vikas Mehta, V. Raghavachari, G. Balaji, Mahalakshmi
Pavani, Mµkesh Kumar Singh (For Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,)
Vivek Jain, Chinmayee Chandra (for Vikas Mehta), Satya Mitra
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A Garg, Plato Aristotil, Manju Aggarwal, S. Ravi Shankar, B.
Balaji, N. Ramaiah, R. Rakesh Sharma for the Appearing
Parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. 1. Leave granted in all the
Special Leave Petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the common
_.....
judgment and final order dated 23rd July, 2010 passed by the
c High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 23893
of 2006, 34401 of 2007, 8339, 12654, 14592, 17578, 25844
and 27982 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.312 of 2008 and
connected misc. petitions. By this order, the High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of 2006 and 34401 of
D 2007 and allowed the Writ Petition No.17578 of 2008 filed by
respondents 3 to 5 and also Writ Appeal No.312 of 2008.
+
3. Since the facts involved in the controversy in all the
appeals are common, we shall make a reference to the facts
as narrated by the High Court. This shall be supplemented by
E any additions made by the appellants in this Court.

4. The facts noticed by the High Court are that initially the
Health Department consisted of Multipurpose Health Workers
and Unipurpose Health Workers who were engaged in various ~
F schemes for eradication of different diseases which were
widespread throughout India. By an order dated 29th
September, 1982, Unipurpose Workers were integrated as
Multipurpose Health Workers. On 4th November, 1988, there
was a subsequent integration of employees engaged in the
G family welfare. Soon thereafter, statutory rules were notified
under the proviso to Article 309 by the G.O.Ms. No.1507 dated
16th August, 1989 which were made applicable to the
Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme. Under the rules,
different Class I and Class II posts were notified and their
essential qualifications were prescribed. The essential
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 305
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
y-
qualification for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health A
Assistant was SSLC and long term Multipurpose Health
Worker's Training Course Certificate or possession of Sanitary
Inspector's Course Certificate and short term training course
certificate from multipurpose health workers training. It was
further provided that the candidates will have to acquire the long B
time training course within five years from the date of
appointment. The essential qualifications were also prescribed
for all other posts. By an amendment dated 19th November,
....4.
1990 (G.O.No.1984), the pay scales of Multipurpose Health
Assistant were re-fixed. On 13th August, 1991, the Health and c
Family Welfare Department by G.O. No.1123 prescribed the
qualifications for promotions of Multipurpose Health
Supervisors as Block Health Supervisors. Vide G.O.Ms. No.4
dated 4th January, 1993 some of the categories were added
in the feeder posts of Multipurpose Health Supervisor and D
\
·~ Multipurpose Health Workers. These rules were, however,
applicable only to those who joined the service under the Tamil
Nadu Public Health Services.

5. Again the Health and Family Welfare Department,
through G.O. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995, E
categorized Multipurpose Health Supervisors and Multipurpose
Health Assistants as Health Inspectors Grade i and Grade II.
-~ The G.O. further provided that all Multipurpose Health Assistants
were to be promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisors
provided they had served on the post for 20 years and had F
crossed the age of 50 years. This relaxation was given as a
one time measure by upgradation of the post. It is pertinent to
mention here that the Multipurpose Health Assistants promoted
under this G.O. included the Unipurpose Health Workers who
- _>,
had been absorbed pursuant to the integration in 1982. The G
aforesaid G.O. No.593 was challenged by certain aggrieved
persons in Writ Petition Nos. 17550 of 2006 and 25608 of
2006. Prior to this, the rules were amended on 20th December,
1995 w.e.f. 6th September, 1989 by G.O. No.782. It was,
however, made clear that the amendment shall not adversely H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A affect those who were holding the post prior to 16th August,
1989.

6. The inter se dispute between the parties in the present
appeals originated when the fact of successful eradication of
leprosy by the National Leprosy Eradication Programme
8
(NLEP) led to the integration of the employees working in the
said Scheme into the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme.
The integration of the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme
with the Leprosy Eradication Scheme took place vide G.O. Ms.
C No.320, Health and Family Welfare (G-1) Department dated
27th June, 1997. The G.O. sets out the rationale for the
integration as follows :-

"The National Leprosy Eradication Programme is in
operation in Tam;I Nadu from 1955~ With the introduction
D of the Multi Drug Therapy (MDT) comprising these drugs.
DAPSONE, RIFAMPCIN and CLOFAZIMINE, incidence of
leprosy has been brought down considerably. Tamil Nadu
has done a commendable work in the leprosy control
Programme over the years. The prevalence of leprosy in
E Tamil Nadu was 118 per 10,000 in 1983 which has been
reduced to 7 per 10,000. The reduction in prevalence rate
for the last two years is not very significant. Recently, India
hosted an International Meet on Eradication of leprosy and
the Prime Minister has set a goal that the leprosy should
F be eradicated from India by 2000 A.D. The IWHO has also
taken similar efforts globally. The eradication of leprosy
means bringing down the prevalence rate to 1 per 10,000."
7. Thus, the Government of India in 1990-91 had
suggested integration of leprosy services. It was felt that in
G order to sustain leprosy services· at the operational level, its
integration with the public health services will be desirable.
Integration would not result in abolition of special services. On
the contrary, specialized component will continue to be available
within the general health services at the State and District level
H for planning and evaluation, provision of training, technical
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 307
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
.,..,
supervision, advice, referral services and research. The A
purpose of this integration would be to involve the Leprosy Field
Staff in Public Health Work and Health Inspectors in the leprosy
work, so that the leprosy inspector will cover a population of
5,000 to 10,000 as against 25,000 which was being covered
at that time by the leprosy inspectors. The Government of Tamil B
Nadu had also upon considering, for quite some. time, the
question of integrating the leprosy services with Multipurpose
Health Workers Scheme, under the Primary Health Care
Services, constituted a committee by the G.O.Ms. No. 1705
dated 18th December, 1996 to go into the various aspects of
integration and submit a report. The recommendations
c
submitted by the aforesaid Committee were examined by the
Government and accepted with some modifications.
Thus, the G.O. (Ms.) No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was
issued integrating Leprosy Control Scheme with Multipurpose D
Health Workers Scheme. The G.O. made elaborate provisions
with regard to: (i) the administrative control of the National
Leprosy Eradication Programme, which was to be vested with
the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, who was
to be responsible for the implementation of the National E
Leprosy Eradication Programme activities in the State. At the
District level, the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Leprosy)
would be the in-charge of the hospital based units and would
-4 be the Programme Officer, assisted by Deputy Director (Health
Services), and (ii) the Salary and other components of the F
programme staff. It was further provided that Salary and other
components of the programme staff under the control of Deputy
Director of Medical Services (Leprosy) will be met from the
existing allotment under Demand-18. Paragraph 4(vii) of the
_,A aforesaid G.O. was as under:-
G
"The posts of Health Educator, Non Medical Supervisor
and Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector
l Grade IB are brought under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine for programme
implementation. However, separate seniority shall be H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

maintained for these staff and the promotions of the ~
A
respective categories will continue in the existing channals
(sic)."

8. The other relevant clause would be 5(iv), which is as
under:-
B
"Leprosy Inspectors: The Leprosy Inspectors will be
redesignated as Health Inspector Grade IB and will be
transferred to the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. They will be posted to the Health
c Sub:.centres covering a population of about 10,000 one
for 2 Health Sub-centres or at one for 5,000 population in
problem areas. The scale of pay of this category of staff
will continue to be in the existing scale of pay of Rs.1200-
30-1560-40-2040. However, in order to protect their
D present emoluments they will be allowed special
allowances of Rs. 50/- per month and the existing Health ~
Inspector Grade I under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine will be re-designated as
Health Inspector Grade IA in the Scale of pay Rs.1350-30-
E 1440-1800-50-2200. The Health Inspector Grade IB will
attend to and undertake various Public Health activities as
per the Job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA in Health
Inspectors Grade IA and Grade II will also attend to
Leprosy Control Work apart from their existing duties after ~- •
necessary training. The Director of Public Health and
F
Preventive Medicine will issue necessary further orders
prescribing revised job chart for the Health Inspector Grade
IA, Health Inspector Grade IB and Health Inspector Grade
II."
G .;..
9. Similarly provision was made for absorption of
Ministerial staff in Clause 6 of the G.O. in the following terms:-

"Ministerial Staff: One of the two sections at the State Head
quarters will be transferred to the Office of the Director of
H Public Health and Preventive Medicine to look after the
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 309
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
service matters of the Leprosy staff other than those A
coming under Director of Medical and Rural Health
Services. Further one Assistant will be transferred from the
Office of the Deputy Director (Lep.) to the Deputy Director
of Health Services in the Districts. The administrative
control of the above staff will vest with the Director of Public B
Health and Preventive Medicine. The remaining ministerial
staff sanctioned for Leprosy Control Programme will be
transferred and posted to the institutions under the control
...;i(
of Director of Medical and Rural Health Services. The
establishment matters of all the ministerial staff including c
the staff attached to the Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine will, however, continue to be with the
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services for the
purpose of future promotions in the respective categories.
The salary and allowances of the ministerial staff attached
D
+ to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
will be met from the existing budget allotment under
Demand-10 Medical by Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. In respect of other ministerial staff
salary and other allowances will be met by Director of
Medical and Rural Health Services from the budget E
allotment under Demand-18 Medical."

10. By Clause 8, even the transportation vehicles were
-+ transferred as under:-
F
"The Government direct that the 102 vehicles along with
drivers working in the Leprosy Control units shall be
transferred to the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine."
~ ~·
11. By Clause 10, all the Government buildings occupied G
by the Government Leprosy Control Units were placed under
the control of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services
along with the equipment and furniture for expansion of Taluka
hospitals, except in places where the buildings were required
for the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Under H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Clause 11, the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine was also directed to take immediate action to impart
necessary training to the leprosy staff in various public health
activities. Similarly, the Public Health staff was directed to be
trained in leprosy control activities. By Clause 13, it was
B directed that the integration of the Leprosy Control Programme
with the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will
take effect from 1st July, 1997. It appears that upon issuance
of the G.O., the merger was completed by 1st August, 1997. It
would be apparent from Clause 5(iv) of the 1997 G.O. that the
c Leprosy Inspectors were designated as Health Inspector Grade
IB and transferred to the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. They were to be paid according to their
existing scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. In order to
protect their present emoluments, they were given special
D allowance of Rs.50/- per month. The existing Health Inspectors
Grade I under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine were designated as Health Inspectors
Grade IA. They were in the pay-scale of Rs.1350-30-1440-
1800-50-2200. It is also apparent that the Health Inspectors
Grade IB were to undertake various public health activities as
E per the job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA. Furthermore,
Health Inspectors Grade IA and Grade II were to attend to
leprosy control work apart from their existing duties after
necessary training. Thereafter, the issue with regard to the
merger of the two categories of Health Inspectors Grade IA and
F Grade IB into a single category was to be examined at the time
of the next ~ay Commission. But it appears that the issue was
not examined in the official Committee of 1998. From the above
narration, it becomes clear that there was complete integration
of the Leprosy Control Scheme with the Multipurpose Health
G Scheme through the G.O.Ms. 320 dated 27th June, 1997. Also,
the fact that non-possession of Sanitary Inspector Course by
the Leprosy Inspectors was not viewed with any serious
concern is evident from the fact that the 1997 scheme was
never challenged by the appellants.
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 311
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r 12. Thereafter, the Director of Public Health and Preventive A
Medicine in his letters dated 17th February, 2006 and 15th July,
2006 set proposals for redesignation of post of Health
Inspectors Grade IB as Health Inspector Grade I considering
their length of service in the department, without imparting any
training to them. He had suggested the aforesaid proposal for B
administrative convenience. At the same time, the Public Health
Department Officials Association (Leprosy) had been
requesting the Government repeatedly for re-designating them
yl..
as Health Inspector Grade I. By letter dated 24th January, 2006,
the Government requested the Director of Public Health and c
'-
Preventive Medicine to send the necessary detailed proposal
for imparting in-service training for a period of one week for all
the Health Inspectors Grade IB so as to re-designate them as
Health Inspectors Grade I. The proposal was also to include
detail of expenditure involved in the proposed training and
D
+ where the expenditure to be made out from the leprosy funds.

13. Atthis stage, some employees filed a number of writ
petitions challenging the instructions issued in the Government
letter dated 24th January, 2006 in the High Court of Madras. In
its order dated 20th January, 2007, in M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2006 E
in Writ Petition No. 23893 of 2006, the High Court directed that
in redesignation made by the respondents shall be subject to
the writ petition. At the same time, the High Court dismissed
.-.+ Writ Petition No. 7892 and 7893 of 2006 on 22nd March, 2006
with the observation that before any order is passed on the F
proposal, the State shall consider the objections of the
i petitioners therein. It appears that Writ Petition Nos. 6250 and
6251 of 2006 had also been filed at the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court in which a stay order had been granted on
-_A 1st August, 2006. The stay order was, however, vacated on G
27th April, 2007. At the same time, the Tamil Nadu Health
Inspectors Association had also given a representation raising
their objection for redesignation of the Health Inspector Grade
IB as Health Inspector Grade I.
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.
...
~
~
A 14. Upon examination of the entire issue and taking into
account the necessity for the merger of the Leprosy Control
Scheme with Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme, the
Government issued a further G.O. on 12th October, 2007
accepting the proposals of the Director of Public Health and
8 Preventive Medicine to re-designate the Health Inspector Grade
IB as Health Inspector Grade I for the purpose of administrative
convenience and to allow the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000.
The aforesaid proposal was accepted through G.O.Ms. No. 382
);..,
dated 12th October, 2007. In this G.O., the rule relating to the
c possession of the Sanitary Inspectors Course (or) Multipurpose ~

Health Worker (Male) Training Course was relaxed in favour of
these Health Inspectors Grade 18 to designate them as Health
Inspector Grade I, without affecting the rights of the existing
Health Inspector Grade I working in the Public Health
Department. The conditions of absorptions were contained in
D
Clause 6 of the aforesaid G.O. which is as under:-
~
"The Government has therefore decided to accept the
proposals of the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine to re-designate the Health Inspectors Grade-1(8)
E as Health Inspector Grade-I for the purpose of
administrative convenience and to allow the scale of pay
of Rs.4500-125-7000. The rule relating to possession of
Sanitary Inspector Course (or) Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Course is relaxed in favour of these Health *-
F Inspectors Grade-1(8) to designate them as Health
Inspector Grade I, without affecting the rights of the existing
Health Inspector Grade-I working in Public Health ):-

Department. The Government accordingly issue the
following orders:
~ .....
G
(i) The post of Health Inspector Grade-I (8) shall hereafter
be designated as Health Inspector Grade-I and the scale
of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 be allowed to them from the
date of issue of the order.

H (ii) Fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay shall be
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 313
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r allowed only from the date of issue of orders under FR 23 A
at the same stage if there is a stage or next stage if there
is no such stage. They are eligible for monetary benefits
only from the date of issue of the Government order.

(iii) The above re-designation is subject to the result of Writ
B
Petition No.23893/06 pending in the High Court of Madras
and Writ-Petition Nos. 6250 & 6251/06 pending befure the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
,,..(_
(iv) These re-designated Health Inspector Grade-I will be

- placed in the seniority list of Health Inspector Grade-I below c
the last person of the Health Inspector Grade-I already
working in the Department. As the re-designation as Health
Inspector Grade-I is given only from the date of issue of
the order in relaxation of rule relating to possession of
sanitary inspectors course, these re-designated Health D

+ Inspector Grade-I cannot claim seniority now or in future
in the post of Health Inspector Grade-I from the date of their
absorption in the Public Health Department as per G.O.Ms.
No. 320 Health dated:27.6.1997.
E
(v) The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I cannot claim
promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor, and
Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in the
existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets promotion as
--+ Block Health Supervisor, and Technical Personal Assistant.
However, the existing promotion channel as Non-Medical F
Supervisor and Health Educator shall be allowed to them
till their turn for promotion to the post of Block Health
Supervisor, Technical Personal Assistant, comes as per
their seniority."
.. __;_ G
15. At this stage, the respondents, i.e., the employees of
the erstwhile Leprosy Control Scheme challenged the Clauses
No. 4 and 5 of Para 6 of the aforesaid G.O. in Writ Petition Nos.
17578, 12654, 25844 and 27982 of 2008. Apart from the
aforesaid challenge, the G.O.Ms. No. 382 was also challenged H
•

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A by the present appellant in Writ Petition No. 34401 of 2007.

16. It would be appropriate to notice here that the
Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.0.(Ms.) No. 73 dated 28th
Februarv. 2008, whereby the Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine was permitted to implement the orders of
B
the High Court dated 21st November, 2007, wherein it was
decided that only those Health Inspectors Grade I who had the
Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate were entitled to be
considered for promotion to the next post of Block Health
C Supervisor.

17. At the same time, the laboratory assistants, who were
promoted as Health Inspectors Grade I; and the directly
-
recruited Multipurpose Health Assistants, who were promoted
as Health Inspectors Grade I filed a batch of writ petitions viz.
D Wri.t Petition Nos. 2249, 10807, 17550 and 25608 of 2006 and
8987, 8988 and 9185 of 2007 with a prayer to restrain the
department from drawing the panel for the post of Block Health
Supervisor by including the names of Health Inspectors Grade
I, who did not possess either Sanitary Inspector Course
E Certificate or Multipurpose Health Course Certificate. It is
pertinent to note here that the Unipurpose Health Workers who
got absorbed into Multipurpose Health Scheme in 1988 and
were made Health Inspectors Grade I in 1999 did not possess
the aforesaid certificates and this very fact was the grievance
F made against the said Unipurpose Health Workers. The
petitioners in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions were in
possession of the said certificates. It was their case that since
Unipurpose Health Workers were promoted as Health
Inspectors Grade I as a one time measure after completing 20
G years of services, they were not entitled to further promotion
on the post of Block Health Supervisor. Their promotion was,
therefore, sought to be challenged on the twin grounds that :
(i) they did not possess the necessary certificate and (ii) they
were already recipients of the benevolence of the Government
in that they had been given promotion as Health Inspectors
H
•

S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 315
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r Grade I as a one time measure. A Single Judge of the High A
Court allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition on 21st November,
2007 accepting both the grounds raised in the writ petition. As
noticed above, the Government accepted and implemented the
aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, through G.O.Ms.
No. 73 dated 28th Febr_!Jary, 2008. The aforesaid G.O. now 8
prompted the Health Inspector Grade I (Erstwhile Unipurpose
Health Workers), who were not in possession of the required
certificate to challenge the same. They filed Writ Petition No.
-.A. 8339 and 1459 of 2008 with a prayer for quashing the aforesaid
G.O.Ms. No. 73. The same category also filed Writ Appeal No. c
- 312 of 2008 challenging the order dated 21st November, 2007,
passed by the Learned Single Judge, which had been
implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 73 of
28th February, 2008. All these matters were taken up for
consideration by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
D
and decided vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2010. The
---t- aforesaid judgment has been challenged in the following Civil
Appeals:-

Civil Appeal No.4491of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.
566 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 4492 of 2013 arising out of E
SLP (C) No. 4572 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4493 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2179 of 2011, Civil Appeal
No.4495 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2183 of 2011,
Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.
2188 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4496 of 2013 arising out F
of SLP (C) No. 2191 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4498 of
2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011, Civil
Appeal No.4497 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2196
of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4499 of 2013 arising out of SLP
.. ,,..\
_ (C) No. 3485 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2013 G
arising out of SLP (C) No. 24492 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4484 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24493 of
2010, Civil Appeal No.4485 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 24494 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25388 of 2010 and the H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A connected appeals being Civil Appeal No.4486 of 2013 ~
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25226 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4488 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25417 of
2010, Civil Appeal No.4489 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 26159 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4490 of 2013
B arising out of SLP (C) No. 25442 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4500 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 15221 of
2011, Civil Appeal No.4501-4502 of 2013 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 4 710-4 711 of 2012 and Civil Appeal
No.4503-4504 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10939- )....
c 10940 of 2012.
-,....
18. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court has held that even though Unipurpose Health
Workers had been given a concession of one time promotion, )-
it would not act as an embargo on their subsequent promotion.
D
Furthermore, the requirement of possession of certificate was
waived only for absorption of Unipurpose Health Workers as
Multipurpose Health Assistants. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 4
+
dated 4th January, 1993 provided that the requirement of 5
years service as Basic Health Workers, Vaccinators, Cholera
E Workers in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Service
was sufficient for promotion to the post of Health Inspector
Grade I. Similarly, 5 year's service in the post of Health Inspector
Grade I was sufficient for promotion as Block Health
Supervisor. The High Court emphasised that Rule nowhere
F contemplates that Health Inspector Grade I, who did not
possess the required certificate could not be promoted as
Block Health Supervisor. The only requirement of the Rule was
that for promotion as Block Health Supervisor, the candidate
shall have 5 year's service as Health Inspector Grade I.
G Consequently, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was }.._ A

set aside and G.O.Ms. No. 73 dated 28th February, 2008 was
quashed. It was made clear that those Health Inspector Grade
I who were not in possession of the Sanitary Inspector Course
Certificate or Multipurpose Health Workers training Course
H Certificate are eligible for promotion to the post of Block Health
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 317
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
..,,_ Supervisor from the date on which their juniors were promoted A
with all benefits.

19. The Division Bench thereafter turned. its attention to the
main controversy between Health Inspector Grade I, who had
been re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IA and Leprosy
B
Inspectors, who had been re-designated as Health Inspectors
Grade 18. The High Court has accepted the claim of the
respondents that their absorption as Health Inspector Grade I
had to be given effect to w.e.f. 1st August, 1997. The aforesaid
conclusion of the High Court is based upon the rationale that
upon integration, the nature of duties and responsibilities
c
performed by Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade 18 were one
and the same. The fact that Grade IA was enjoying a higher
scale of pay than the pay-scale of Inspector Grade 18 was of
no relevance, for the purpose of equivalence of Posts. Whilst
' allowing the claim of the respondents and accepting that they D
..,..
}

have been absorbed as Health Inspector Grade I w.e.f. 1st
August, 1997, the High Court, however, directed that they would
be placed at the bottom of the seniority of serving Health
Inspectors Grade I as on 1st August, 1997. Consequently, the
Writ Petitions Nos. 8339, 12654, 14592, 17578, 25844 and E
27982 of 2008 and the writ appeal in W.A.No.312 of 2008 were
allowed. However, Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of 2006 and 34401
of 2007 were dismissed.
-+ 20. We have heard the counsel for the parties at great F
"- length.
21. The first submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the petitioner, is that the executive

·-
instructions cannot supplant statutory rules and for the
•...A. redesignation of Health Inspectors Grade 18 as Health G
Inspectors Grade I an amendment in the relevant statutory rules
was necessary. He relies upon Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. 1 in support of this submission. This

1. (1968) 1 SCR 111. H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A submission has been reiterated by all the counsel for the
appellants. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, relies upon the case of
Prafulla Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., 2 Pradip
Chandra Parija & Ors. Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik & Ors., 3
Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 4 and 0. N.
B Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3671
of 1988].
22. The second contention of Mr. P.P. Rao is that the
academic qualifications prescribed for a post cannot be relaxed
and the length of experience cannot be a substitute for
C educational qualifications prescribed (Relies on: Syed Khalid
Rizvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.;5 Suraj Prakash Gupta
& Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.; 6 R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.;7 Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3)
& Ors. 8 and State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Bir9). Thus, it
D has been pointed out that relaxation given firstly vide G.O.Ms.
No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995; and then vide G.O. (Ms.)
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 with regard to the
qualification of Sanitary Inspector Course or Multipurpose
Health Worker (Male) is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
E the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the relaxation
amounts to treating un-equals as equals. This submission was
reiterated by Mr. S. Gomathinayagam. The learned Addi.
Advocate General placed reliance upon Haryana State
Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Gulshan Lal & Ors. 10
F 23. The learned counsel further pointed out that any such .·
2. (2003) 11 sec 614.
3. (2002) 1 sec 1.
4. 1994 Sup (3) sec 451.
G 5. (1993) Supp. 3 sec 575 '
)...
6. (2000) 7 sec 561. '
7. (2006) 6 sec 430.
8. (2006) 4 sec 1.
9. (1998) 6 sec 165.
H 10. (2009) 12 sec 231.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 319
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
)r relaxation, even if vali~. can only be prospective in application A
from .the said order. However, the Division Bench of the High
Court has given retrospective effect to G.O. No. 382 dated 12th
October, 2007. Thus, the impugned judgment/order has in fact
added to the illegal benefit given to the respondents by the
aforesaid G.O. No.382. They have placed reliance upon the B
case of Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh. &
Ors. 11 In addition, it is submitted that the Sanitary Inspector
Course is still available and that it is required for promotion to
~,Jj the post of Block Heath Supervisor.

24. All the learned counsel have reiterated the C
submissions of Mr. P .P. Rao that Court would not enforce
negative equality. In support of this submission they relied upon
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J & K & Ors.; 12 Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Dau/at Mal Jain & Ors.; 13
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee D
& Ors.; 14 and Shanti Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors.1s

25. Mr. Rao, Mr. Giri, Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel;
Mr. Poongkuntran, Ms. Mohanna and Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, E
learned counsel, have submitted that no merger between the
Health Inspector Grade 18 and Health Inspectors Grade I can
be considered to have had taken place. The fact that a clear
distinction was maintained with regard to the said posts even
after 1997 would show the lack of any merger. Further, it cannot F
be overlooked that Leprosy Service was not abolished. Also,
the very fact that separate seniority channel of promotion for
the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspectors
Grade 18 was maintained, would show that there was no

11. (2007) 12 sec 231. G
12. 1995 Supp. (1) sec 188.
13. (1996) 1 sec 35.
14. (1996) 2 sec 459.
15. (2009) 15 sec 705.
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A merger. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam further points out that the High
Court's order has resulted in giving double promotion to the said
Leprosy Inspectors on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated
12.10.2007. Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel, has relied
upon Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. Chairman, UPSC & Ors. 16
B Besides, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel, has relied upon the
case of R.K. Sethi & Anr. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
& Ors. 17 in support of the submission that there is no· valid
merger in the present case.

26. Premising her contentions on the aforesaid
C submissions, Ms. Mohanna, learned counsel, pointed out that
the G.O.CMs.) No. 320 dated 27th June. 1997 which culminated
in effectuating the second integration was never challenged by
the Health Inspectors Grade 18, though they claimed that the
duties being performed by them are similar to Health Inspectors
D Grade I. This, according to her, cannot be the ground for
equating the post of Health Inspectors Grade 18 with that of
Health Inspectors Grade I. Thus, the judgment of the High Court
is not correct insofar it has equated the aforesaid two posts. It
has also been argued by the learned Addi. Advocate General
E that the latter G.O.Ms. No. 382 was a consequential order
based on earlier G.O. No. 320 and, therefore, writ petitioner(s)
did not have any locus standi to challenge the consequential
order. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Laxmi
Rattan Cotton Mills Limited. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
F Ors. 18

27. Another submission is that the High Court wrongly
confused and intermingled the· controversy relating to
promotions of employees involved in the first integration with
G that of second integration. In this context, it was pointed out that
the resolution of the issue relating to promotion under the
>... -

16. c2006) s sec 42.
11. (1997) 10 sec 616.
H 1s. c2009) 1 sec 695.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 321
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
G.O.Ms. No. 593 dated 11th September. 1995 of employees A
who initially joined after 1989 as the Multipurpose Health
Assistants from various Unipurpose Schemes have no
relevance to the controversy relating to the Leprosy Inspectors
re-designated as Health Inspector Grade 18, since both of the
said posts are borne on separate and distinct cadres. It was 8
also submitted that while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 312 of
2008. which was filed by the employees who were initially
working as Unipurpose Inspectors, the High Court did not go
into the merits thereof. Furthermore, the benefit given to the
employees under the said writ appeal was wrongly extended C
to the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspectors
Grade 18. Reliance has been placed by Mr. S.
Gomathinayagam, in this context, upon the cases of T.
Venkateswarulu Vs. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi
Devasthanams & Ors. 19 and Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State
of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. 20 D

28. Mr. Rao also submitted that the absorbed employees
are not entitled to count previous service in the earlier grade
for the purpose of seniority in the new cadre. Reliance has been
placed upon; K.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & E
Ors.; 21 SK. Abdul Rashid & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir& Ors.; 22 and Govind Prasad Vs. R.G. Parsad & Ors. 23

29. In reply, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for
the respondents, submits that the integration of Leprosy F
Inspectors into the Department of Heath and Preventive
Medicine which took place vide G.O.(Ms.)No. 320 dated 27th
June, 1997, was complete in all respects. According to him, this
becomes clear from the detailed instructions contained in the

G
19. c2009) 1 sec 546.
20. c2009) 1s sec 321.
21. 1994 Supp. (3) sec 408.
22. c2008) 1 sec 122.
23. (1994) 1 sec 437.
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A said G.O. The same submissions have been reiterated by Mrs.
Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel. Both learned
senior counsel submitted that a policy decision to merge two
or more posts, cadres or services can be made implemented/
enforced through an executive order/instructions as long as the
B executive order/or instructions do not run counter to the Rules.
[Reliance for this submission was placed upon Indian Airlines
Officers' Assn. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. 24 and Vinay
Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 25 Mr. Jaideep
Gupta, learned senior counsel, has pointed out that the G.O. .. .
C through which the integration and merger has been ordered are
in the nature of executive instructions. These instructions have
not supplanted the statutory rules and are within the ratio of Sant
Ram Sharma (supra) and Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State
of Uttaranchal & Ors. 26

D 30. The next submission of Mr. Patwalia, which is
reiterated by the other learned senior counsel for the -"t
respondents, is that since the second integration was complete
in all respects, the Leprosy Inspectors cannot be discriminated
against in consideration of their eligibility for further promotion
E to the post of Block Health Supervisor, on the ground of initial
recruitment. In other words, it has been argued that the
"birthmark disappears after integration into a single class or
cadre." In this behalf, reliance has been placed upon: B.
Manmad Reddy & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors.; 27
F S.L. Sachdev & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 28 General
Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. Vs.
V.R. Siddhantti & Ors.; 29 and State of Mysore Vs. M.H.
Krishna Murthy & Ors. 3 \
24. c2001) 10 sec 684.
G 25. (1990) 2 sec 647.
26. (2008) 4 sec 111.
21. c2010> 3 sec 314.
28. (1980) 4 sec 562 ..
29. (1974) 4 sec 335.
H 30. (1973) 3 sccc 559.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 323
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r 31. It has been also argued by Mr. Patwalia that it needs A
to be appreciated that G.O. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007
is in the nature of a clarification as it clarifies what ought to have
been done in G.O. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997. He has
emphasised that since the G.O. No. 320 did not re-designate
the Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspectors Grade I in 1997, B
the 2007 order 'sets the mistake right' of the State Government.
He points out that the 2007 G.O. itself speaks of the reasons
for rectifying the mistakes committed in the 1997 order. Thus,
~
the G.O. of 2007 merely reinforces the integration of 1997. In
this respect, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, has c
gone even further and submitted that even if it has to be
assumed that the merger of the cadres took place effectively
only on the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October,
2007, the High Court was correct in concluding·that Leprosy
Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspectors Grade IB would D
. ,_ '"t be entitled to the benefit of their service in the post of Health
Inspector Grade IB since 1997. Relying upon the law laid in K.
Madhavan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 31 R.S. Makashi
& Ors: Vs. J.M. Menon & Ors.; 32 Wing Commander J. Kumar
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 33 and Sub-Inspector Roop/al & Anr.
E
Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors.; 34 it
has been contended that where persons from different sources
are merged into one service, their pre-existing total length of
~ service in the parent department has to be protected. Their
previous service cannot be obliterated upon integration/merger.
F
32. Thus, it has been contented that the High Court has
rightly given the benefit to the Leprosy Inspectors retrospectively
from the date of second integration and correctly placed them
at the bottom of the seniority list of the already existing Health
,;. Inspectors Grade I, with effect from 27th June, 1997. G

31. (1987) 4 sec 566.
32. (1982) 1 sec 379.
33. (1982) 2 sec 116.
34. (2000) 1 sec 644.
H
•

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 33. Mr. Patwalia has further submitted that the insistence
for qualification (Sanitary Inspector Course) for entry level/
feeder post-Health Inspector Grade II for re-designation of
Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspector Grade I in 2007 is
misplaced since the State Government has passed a reasoned
s order to this effect, after considering the report of the Special
Committee constituted for integration. He further submitted that
the argument of the appellants that since education
qualifications are different, nature of duties are different, there I

cannot be any integration, has been specifically rejected in the ~
c Indian Airlines Officers' Assn. case (supra). Similarly, the
argument that the absorption must be from the entry level in the
new cadre was also rejected in the aforesaid case. Further,
since the Sanitary Inspector Course has long been
discontinued, it would be an impossible condition to fulfill.
D 34. We may also notice here that the submission of Mrs.
Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel, that since Rule 5
of Notification Ill under G.O.Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August,
1989 does not mention the Sanitary Inspector Course as a sine
quo non for the post of Block Health Supervisor, the argument
E of the appellants that possession of such a course is necessary
is unfounded. She has further submitted that the State
Government is estopped from raising such an objection in this
Court since before the High Court, it was admitted by the State ~
that Sanitary Inspector Course is not required to get designated
F as Health Inspectors Grade I.

35. All the learned counsel for the respondents
emphasised that equity is in the favour of the respondents. It
needs to be appreciated, according to them, that Leprosy
G Inspectors have lost the entire service from 1979-1989 till 1997. A.
Also, that the State Government's stand before this Court is
contradictory to that before the High Court, which is not
permissible in view of the law laid down in Hari Bansh Lal Vs.
Sahodar Prasad Mahto· & Ors. 35

H 35. c2010) g sec 655.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 325
[SURINDER SINGH N!JJAR, J.]
36. Besides, Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, learned senior A
counsel, has submitted that the Health Inspectors Grade I who
were working as Health Inspectors Grade II before the second
integration never challenged the said integration and therefore,
they are estopped from contending that they should be ranked
senior to Health Inspectors Grade IB. B

37. Mr. Jaideep Gupta further submitted that the question
of equation of posts does not depend merely on the fact that
both posts were in same or similar pay scales. There are a
number of other factors, namely, nature of duties,
responsibilities, minimum qualification, etc, which have to be C
considered as a whole. In support of this submission, he relied
on Union of India & Anr. Vs. P.K. Roy & Ors. 36

38. We have given considerable thought to the very
elaborate submissions made by the learned senior counsel and D
the other counsel for all the parties. The qualifications
prescribed under the aforesaid rules for the basic post of Health
Inspector Grade II, were: (a) SSLC Pass Certificate; (b) One
year long term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate; or (c) Sanitary Course Certificate with Short Term E
Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate. The
aforesaid provision contained in the Rules framed under Article
309 of the Constitution of India could not be amended by
executive instructions. We have no hesitation in accepting the
first submission of Mr. Rao that the executive instructions can F
not supplant the statutory rules, in view of the ratio of law laid
down in the case of Sant Ram Sharma (supra). The aforesaid
ratio has been reiterated by this Court on numerous occasions.
It is not necessary to make a reference to any of the
subsequent decisions as it would be a mere repetition of the
G
accepted ratio, noticed above. We are, however, of the opinion
that the ratio of law laid down in Sant Ram Sharma's case
(supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case. The qualification of having passed the one year
36. (1968) 2 SCR 186. H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A long term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate or Sanitary Course Certificate with short term Multi
Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training Certificate are the
statutory requirements for recruitment and appointment on the
post of Health Inspector Grade II. These qualifications would,
s therefore, be possessed by some of the incumbents on the
promotional post of Health Inspector Grade II being Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor/ HeaJth Inspector Grade I as well. It
is a matter of record that even in the cadre of Health Inspector
Grade II, there were many incumbents who did not possess )....,
c these qualifications. There was a category of employees i.e.,
the direct recruit Health Inspectors Grade II who possessed the
aforesaid qualifications. There was the other category i.e.
Unipurpose Health Workers consisting of Health Workers,
Cholera Workers and Vaccinators, who had entered the cadre
of Health Inspector Grade· II without such qualifications. The
0
requirement for having the aforesaid qualifications on the post
of Health Inspector Grade II was waived by way of order G.O. 1' ~
Ms. No. 1936 dated 29th September, 1982. Thus, it is evident
that the possession of the two aforesaid qualifications was no
E longer considered a requirement for appointment on the post
of Health Inspector Grade II. It is also a matter of record that
the possession of the aforesaid qualifications was not
prescribed for promotion to the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor/Health Inspector Grade I. Notification Ill issued under
G.O.Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989 provides for the .+..-
F following rules applicable to the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor that :-

2. Constitution The post shall constitute a distinct
G
category in Class -I of the said service.
3. Appointment:- Appointment to the post shall be made
by promotion from the post of Multi
Purpose Health Assistant under the
Multi Purpose Health V\/orkers Scheme.
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 327
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
4. Appointment The appointment authority for the post A
Authority:- shall be the Deputy Director of Public
Health and Preventive medicine

5. Qualification: Experience for a period of not less then
five years in the category of Multi
B
Purpose Health Assistant under the
Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme.

39. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, many Health
Inspectors Grade II had been promoted as Health Inspectors
Grade I, without possessing the aforesaid qualifications. It is C
also noteworthy, as admitted by the State Government, that the
Sanitary Inspector Course was rescinded much prior to the
issuance of the G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, thus
there was no opportunity for the Leprosy Inspectors to qualify
for the aforesaid Certificate. Yet the aforesaid G.O. provided D
that since the Leprosy Inspectors do not possess the aforesaid
qualifications, they shall be designated as Health Inspector
Grade 18 on integration with the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor I Health Inspector Grade I. Jn view of the aforesaid
developments, Leprosy Inspectors were fully eligible to be re- E
designated as Multi Purpose Health Supervisor I Health
Inspector Grade I. It was wholly unnecessary, unjustified and
unfair to re-designate the Multi Purpose Health Supervisors as
~·· Health Inspectors Grade IA and Health Inspectors Grade 18.

40. From the above, it becomes apparent that the G.O.Ms. F
No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not have the effect of
amending the rules. It is also clear that the aforesaid G.O. did
not supplant the statutory provisions. It is also further clear that
there was no relaxation of the qualifications on the post of Multi
Purpose Health Assistant (Health Inspector Grade II) or on the G
post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector
Grade I). Therefore, in our opinion, upon integration of Leprosy
Inspectors into the cadre of Multi Purpose Health Supervisors,
the further categorization into Health Inspector Grade IA and
Health Inspector Grade 18 was wholly unjustified. It had no H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.
'
~

~
A rational nexus with any object sought to be achieved, and
therefore, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

41. We may notice here that under the G.0.Ms. No. 320
dated 27th June, 1997, Clause 7 had provided that the post of
Health Educator, Non-Medical Supervisor and Leprosy
B
Inspectors (re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB) were
brought under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. However, separate seniority was to be
'
maintained for the aforesaid staff and the promotions of the ~
respective categories will continue in the existing channel.
c Therefore, till the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th
..,

October, 2007, Leprosy Inspectors continued to be promoted
on the next higher post of Non-Medical Supervisor and Health
Educator. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320
was not challenged and Leprosy Inspectors were being
D promoted under separate channels of promotion. Thus, it is
evident that till the issuance of the G.O. Ms. No. 382 of 2007, Y~
Health Inspector Grade IA, who had been promoted from the
post /category of Health Inspector Grade I, had no grievance
with the integration through G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June,
E 1997.

42. In view of our above conclusions, we are unable to
accept the third submission of Mr. P .P. Rao and the other
learned counsel that there has been any relaxation with regard
F to qualification of Sanitary Inspector Course or Multi Purpose
Health Workers (Male) Training Certificate in violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As noticed earlier by G.O.
Ms. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995 did not, in any
manner, concern the Leprosy Inspectors. The aforesaid G.O.
was only issued for implementation of the G.O. Ms. No. 1936,
G ~-
Health and Family Welfare dated 29th September, 1982, with
effect from 4th November, 1988 which was implemented
through G.O. Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989. The
aforesaid relaxation was given to remove stagnation to Multi
Purpose Health Assistants, who were not able to get any
H
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 329
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
r promotion even after crossing the age of 50 years or having A
rendered 20 years of service. It was specifically noticed in G.O.
Ms. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995 that possession of
the Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training Certificate
and Sanitary Course Certificate with short term Multi Purpose
Health Workers (Male) Training Certificate was not a B
precondition for absorption of Basic Health Workers,
Vaccinators, Cholera Workers as Multi Purpose Health
Assistants. Therefore, at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 was
~ issued, the aforesaid qualifications were not acquired. Even if
required, the same had been duly relaxed. Therefore, it would c
also not be possible to accept the submission of Mr. Rao that
""""' the relaxation given to the Leprosy Inspectors was either
arbitrary or discriminatory. The State was within its powers to
relax the aforesaid qualification in exercise of its powers of the
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955. Rule
D
- "(
48 of the aforesaid rules provides as under:-

"48. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or
in the special rules, the Governor shall .have power to deal
with the case of any person or class of persons serving in
a civil capacity under the Government of Tamil Nadu or of E
any person who has or of any class of persons who have
served as aforesaid or any candidate or class of
candidates for appointment to a service in such manner
as may appear to him to be just and equitable:
F
Provided that, where any such rule is applicable to the case
of any person or class of persons, the case shall not be
dealt with in any manner less favourable to him or them
than that provided by that rule."

~.yA 43. Therefore, the provision contained with regard to any G
relaxation given to any of the categories unde(G.O. Ms. No.
320 dated 27th June, 1997 and under G.O. Ms!No. 382 dated
12th October, 2007 being traceable to the power under Rule
48 of the 1955 Rules can not be said to be without any legal
authority or jurisdiction. We, therefore, reject the aforesaid H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A submission of the counsel for the petitioners also. We are of
the opinion that in fact injustice had been caused to the Leprosy
Inspectors at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June,
1997 was issued, which has been rectified by issuing G.O. Ms.
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007. As noticed above, the
B qualification of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate, the qualification of Sanitary Course Certificate with
Short term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate were not the required qualification for appointment
as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors. These were also not the
c qualifications which were required for being appointed as a
Leprosy Inspector. However, even though by the 1997
integration through G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997,
the Leprosy Inspectors were equated with Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors, both categories were not given the same
designation. The Multi Purpose Health Supervisors were
0
designated as Health Inspector Grade IA, while Leprosy
Inspectors were designated as Health Inspector Grade IB. The
aforesaid categorization of Leprosy Inspectors as Health
Inspector Grade IB was founded on a fallacy. It was wrongly
assumed by the State that Leprosy Inspectors could not be
E designated as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors as they did
not possess the necessary qualification for the basic post of
Health Assistants, i.e., Health Inspector Grade II. The mere fact
that Leprosy Inspectors were not placed in the feeder cadre of
Health Inspector Grade II makes it evident that they were not
F required to possess the qualifications of the basic posts. They
were in fact from the very inception being equated with the post
of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade I).
It was not a case of upgradation of the post of Leprosy
Inspector to the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. The
G two posts were equated. Leprosy Inspectors were transferred
and brought under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine for programme implementation. On
transfer, they were re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB.
lnspite of the fact that the aforesaid two qualifications of one
H year long term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL. NADU 331
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
/
r Certificate and Sanitary Course Certificate with short term Multi A
'
Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate were not the
essential qualifications for appointment as Health Inspector
Grade I, the post of Health Inspector Grade I was unnecessarily
split into Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade 18.
8
44. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted
that relaxation even if valid can only be prospective in its
application. The aforesaid proposition of law also would not be
-.;.( applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. We are
of the opinion that injustice had been done to the Leprosy
..... Inspectors at the time of the 1997 merger/integration. In spite c
of a complete merger, G.O.Ms. No.320 dated 27th June, 1997
still provided in Paragraph 4 of Clause 7 of the G.O. that the
incumbents of the post of Health Inspector Grade 18, although
brought under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine for programme implementation shall be D
.. Y placed in a separate seniority list, and the promotions of the
respective categories will continue in the existing channels.
Although Inspectors Grade 18 were placed in a lower pay scale,
they were to attend various Public Health activities as per the
job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA, in additioi'l to Leprosy E
Control Programme. Similarly, Health Inspector Grade IA and
Grade II were to attend the Leprosy Control Work apart from
_)._ their existing duties after necessary training. It was made clear
that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will
• issue necessary further orders prescribing revised job chart for F
, the Health Inspector Grade IA, Health Inspector Grade 18 and

"' Health Inspector Grade IL Therefore, it seems apparent that
there was complete integration of Leprosy Control Scheme with
Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme with effect from 1st July,
___,, J 1997 and the process of integration was actually completed by G
1st August, 1997. As held in the case of P. K. Roy (supra), an
issue concerning the posts has to be consid~red from a
broader prospective, and it does not depend merely on the
salary of the employees. Broadly speaking, the relevant factors
could be; (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a
post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or
responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if
any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary
of the post. Further, it was also held in the aforesaid case that
B "if the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then
the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would
not in any way make the post 'not equivalenf." Since the post
of Health Inspector Grade IB was for all practical purposes
equal to Health Inspector Grade IA, there was no legal
c justification to continue the disparity in the pay scales of Health
Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB. The High
Court, therefore, rightly gave the benefit of equation of post of
-
Health Inspector Grade -IB with that that of Health Inspector
Grade IA from the date of their integration, in 1997.
0 45. Having accepted the complete merger of the cadre of
Health Inspector Grade IB with Health Inspector Grade IA and
all being re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I, G.O.(Ms.)
No. 382 of 2007 failed to achieve the intended result. It still
discriminated against the erstwhile Health Inspector Grade IB,
E by robbing them of service from 1997 to 2007. They were given
the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 but from the date of the
G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007 i.e. 12th October, 2007. Further, they
were placed en bloc at the bottom of the seniority list of Health
Inspector Grade I. This denial of seniority was justified on the
0
F ground that "as the redesignation of Health Inspector Grade I
is given only from the date of the issue of the order in relaxation
of rule relating to possession of Sanitary Inspector Course, they
can not claimO the benefit of service since integration on 27th
June, 1997." The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I were
G also denied promotion on the post of Block Health Supervisor
and Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in the
category of Health Inspector Grade I is promoted as Block
Health Supervisor. They were given the alternate route of
promotion as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator, till
their turn comes for promotion, as per their seniority.
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A justified in quashing Para 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.(Ms.) No. 382
-..; _,._
of 2007. The High Court has correctly held that the re-
designated Health Inspector Grade I ought to have been given
the same scale of pay as Health Inspector Grade IA from the
date of the merger. In fact, on that date itself, the two posts
B should have been re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I,
enjoying the same scale of pay, as all incumbents were
performing the same duties and shouldering the same
responsibilities. It was not permissible for the State to treat the
re-designated Health Inspector Grade I differently from the ~

c Health Inspector Grade IA, on the basis of the initial source of
recruitment.

48. The birth mark was obliterated on the merger of the
post of Leprosy Inspector with Health Inspector Grade I. There
was no justification of putting Health Inspector Grade 18 in the
D pay scale of Rs.1200-2010, whilst Health Inspector Grade IA
was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200. At the time of -y * .....
integration, both categories had to be given the same pay scale
i.e. Rs.1350-2200. In this respect, the principle of law laid down
by this Court, time and again, is that a classification based on
E the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers,
coming from different sources into a common cadre/category,
would be wholly unjustified and discriminatory. This principle ,...
.......

was relied upon by this Court in the case of B. Manmad Reddy
(supra), wherein this court reiterated the observations of this
;._
F Court in Paragraph 5 of Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of
lndia: 37

"In our opinion, the constitutional objection taken by the
petitioner to this part of the notification is well founded and
must be accepted as correct. At the time when the A.:/
G
petitioner and direct recruits were appointed to Grade D,
there was one class in Grade D formed of direct recruits
and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The
recruits from both the sources to Grade D were integrated

H 37. (1968) 1 SCR 185. I-
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 335
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

r· into one class and no discrimination could thereafter be A
made in favour of recruits from one source as against the
recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion
to Grade C. To put it differently, once the direct recruits
and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form
one class and they cannot be discriminated for the 8
purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade C."

49. Since G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 was
issued to remove the injustice done to Leprosy Inspectors at
-~
the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was
issued. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Rao
c
that any unjustified retrospective effect has been given to the
G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007. Consequently, we
also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Rao that
granting the benefit of service to Health Inspectors Grade 18
on the post of health Inspector Grade I resulted in enforcement D
... y of a negative equity. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel would not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case. ·

50. In view of the detailed reasons given above, we also E
do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that there was not a complete merger
between the post of Leprosy Inspectors and Multi Purpose
J.,. Health Supervisor, by G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997.

51. We also do not find any substance in the submission F
',
of the Additional Advocate General, that the erstwhile Leprosy
Inspectors have been given double benefit of promotion as they
still continue to enjoy original channel of promotion on the post
of Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator.
""· _J.. G
52. The promotion on. the aforesaid posts were being
given to the Health Inspectors Grade 18 only in view of the wholly
illegal prohibition contained in G.O. Ms. No. 320 of 1997.

53. These observations are fully applicable in the facts and
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A circumstances of this case.

54. We, therefore, find the submissions of the appellant to
be devoid of any merit. The High Court was justified in
quashing the Paras 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.Ms. No.382. The
seniority of the respondent has to be fixed in the cadre of Health
8
Inspector Grade I by giving the benefit of service from 27th
June, 1997. Further, they are eligible to be promoted on
completion of 5 years service on the post of Health Inspector
Grade I, though, they can be placed at the bottom of the ~
seniority of serving Health Inspector Grade I as on 1st August,
c 1997.

55. We may also mention here about the extent of
interference of this court in matters relating to integration or
fusion of employees. This court held in the Indian Airlines
D Officers Association's case (supra) that the matter of integration
or the fusion of employees, being one of policy, could not have y 4
been challenged by the employees unless the said decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. And as noticed
earlier, that none of the Government Orders vide which
E integration was effectuated, suffers from any of the aforesaid
irregularities. The High Court has merely undone the injustice
done to the respondents. We are, therefore, not inclined to
interfere in the well reasoned order of the Division Bench of the
High Court. J......
F 56. We have given considerable thought to the law laid in
the judgments cited and relied upon by Mr. Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

57. However, none of the principles enunciated by this
G Court in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the ,~ ,_
appellants have been infringed by any of the actions taken on
the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 and G.O.
Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007. In our opinion, the High
Court, in fact rightly quashed and set aside the offending
H clauses of 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th
"""(

S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 337
(SURINDER· SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
'r
' October, 2007. A

58. At this stage, we may summarise the conclusions
recorded by us in the following manner:-

r i. The integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the
Department of Health and Preventive Medicine by B
G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was
complete in all respects .
...... The aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June,
ii.
-<:: 1997 did not bring about an amendment in the c
11111! Statutory Services Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No.
1507 dated 16th August, 1989. The G.O.Ms. was
supplementary to the aforesaid Rules and did not
supplant the same.
D
.. y iii. There was no relaxation in the educational
qualification for the integration/re-designation of
Leprosy Inspectors as Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors as the post of Leprosy Inspector was
equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor. The qualifications prescribed for E
.... appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Assistants re-designated as Health Inspector
~.A. Grade II were not applicable for the post of Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor.
.. F
'
iv. Since, there was a complete integration of the
posts of Leprosy Inspector and Multi Purpose
Health Supervisor by virtue of G.O.Ms. No,. 320
dated 27th June, 1997; both categories were
-~ >' • entitled to the same treatment. Therefore, Leprosy G
Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector
Grade IB were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1350-
2000 w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 and the pay-scale of
Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. the same were given to Health
Inspector Grade IA, with all consequential benefits.
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A V. Upon integration vide G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th \"
June, 1997, Multi Purpose Health Supervisors and
Leprosy Inspectors were to be re-designated as
Health Inspector Grade I. The birth mark of the
Leprosy Inspector got obliterated with the
B integration. There could be no further distinction in
the cadre of Health Inspector Grade I. There could
be no such division as Health Inspector Grade IA
and Health Inspector Grade IB.
;.....
\(i. Since Paragraph 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382
c dated 12th October, 2007 was in violation of
..
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, they
have been correctly struck down by the High Court.

vii. The denial of seniority to the re-designated Health
D Inspectors Grade IB, i.e., erstwhile Leprosy
Inspectors on the post of Health Inspector Grade I y ..
w.e. f. 1st August, 1997 to 12th October, 2007
violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. The Division Bench of the High Court has
E correctly concluded that the integrated Leprosy
Inspectors, re-designated as Health Inspector
Grade IB are to be re-designated as Health
Inspector Grade I and to be given seniority as well
).__
as consequential reliefs such as seniority and
F further promotions.

viii. The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.0.Ms.
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying
promotion of the re-designated Health Inspector
Grade I to the post of Block Health Supervisor and
~-
G Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in
the existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets
promotion as Block Health Supervisor and
Technical Personal Assistant, has been rightly held
by the High Court to be violative of Articles 14 and
H 16 of the Constitution of India.
S. SIVAGURU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 339
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

ix. The continuance of the existing promotion channels A
as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator to
the re-designated Health Inspector grade I
(erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to
bestowing a double benefit upon this category.
Therefore, the High Court did not enforce negative B
equality. The High Court has correctly observed that
·upon integration and merger into one cadre, the
pre-existing length of service of the Leprosy
Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector
Grade 18 had to be protected as it can not be c
obliterated: Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors have
been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority
list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade
I w.e.f. 27th Jur.e, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said

-
.. y
that benefit has been given to the Leprosy
Inspectors /Health Inspector Grade 18 /Health
Inspector Grade I with retrospective effect.
0

59. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, we find no merit
in any of the following Civil Appeals, i.e., Civil Appeal No.4491
of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 566 of 2011, Civil Appeal E
No 4492 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4572 of 2011, Civil
Appeal No.4493 of 2013 arising out of SLP {C) No. 2179 of
2011, Civil Appeal No 4495 of 2013 arising out of SLP {C) No.
2183 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 2188 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4496 of 2013 arising F
out of SLP (C) No. 2191 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4498 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4497
of 2013 arising out of SLP {C) No. 2196 of 2011, Civil Appeal
No. 4499 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3485 of 2011,
Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24492 G
of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4484 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 24493 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4485 of 2013 arising out
of SLP (C) No. 24494 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25388 of 201 O and the connected
appeals being Civil Appeal No.4486 of 2013 arising out of H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A SLP (C) No. 25226 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4488 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25417 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4489 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26159 of 201 O,
Civil Appeal No.4490 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25442
of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4500 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
B No. 15221 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4501-4502 of 2013 arising
out of SLP (C) No. 4710-4711 of 2012 and Civil Appeal
No.4503-4504 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10939-
10940 of 2012. All of them are hereby dismissed.

60. Further, no need arises for passing a separate order
C in the Contempt Petition No. 133 of 2012 in Civil Appeal >
No.4498 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011 and
Contempt Petition No. 145 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No.4492 of
2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4572 of 2011, as the said
Contempt Petitions would be rendered infructuous by this
D judgment.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.
-