(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)Nos.1167 to 1176 of 2026 dated 23.03.2026.)

Common Judgment:

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)Nos.1167 to 1176 of 2026, dated 23.03.2026, the writ petitioners have preferred the present Writ Appeals.

2. The writ petitioners, who are working as Assistant Horticultural Officers at the field level, filed the writ petitions challenging the orders of redeployment, whereby they were transferred from their existing places of posting to other districts pursuant to the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.252, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare [VeNi4(2)] Department, dated 30.09.2025, and G.O.Ms.No.288, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare [VeNi4(2)] Department, dated 28.11.2025.

3. The main contention raised by the writ petitioners before the writ Court was that Assistant Horticultural Officers are governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Horticulture Service. According to the said Rules, transfers within a region are to be effected by the Joint Director of Horticulture or the Deputy Director of Horticulture concerned, whereas transfers from one region to another are to be effected by the Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops. It was contended that, by virtue of the impugned scheme, the functions of the Horticulture and Agriculture Departments had been integrated and Assistant Horticultural Officers had been redistributed to various regions. Aggrieved by such transfer orders, the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions raised and analysing the entire scheme, found that there was no violation of seniority. The learned Single Judge further observed that the scheme specifically provided that there would be no change with regard to the leave-sanctioning authority or the salary-disbursing authority; that matters relating to promotion and retirement would continue to be governed by the existing procedures; that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated and conducted in accordance with the procedures already in force; and that there would be no change in the reporting authority. The learned Single Judge therefore held that there was no alteration in the departmental structure or cadre management and that all service conditions would continue to be governed by the existing rules and procedures. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the redistribution of Assistant Horticultural Officers to other regions and their deployment in agricultural areas as field officers, based on the net cultivable area, without adequate training, would adversely affect their service interests, including seniority. It is further submitted that, even after such redistribution, practical difficulties would arise in determining inter se seniority among officers working in the same area.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, under the Rules governing the Horticulture Service, transfers outside the region can be effected only by the Director of Horticulture. Therefore, when statutory rules are already in force, the Government cannot, by way of an executive scheme, redistribute the officers in a manner inconsistent with the Rules.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is relevant to note that the Government introduced the scheme known as "Uzhavar Aluvalar Thodarbu Thittam (UATT) 2.0" with the objective of strengthening the interaction between farmers and officers of the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments, thereby improving agricultural efficiency and productivity. The scheme seeks to provide technical assistance to farmers through regular field visits by Assistant Agricultural Officers and Assistant Horticultural Officers. Prior to the implementation of the impugned Government Orders, officers of the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments conducted separate visits to farmers, which resulted in duplication of efforts and administrative inefficiency. Therefore, under the scheme, Assistant Agricultural Officers and Assistant Horticultural Officers have been equitably distributed based on the net cultivable area and entrusted with the responsibility of conducting field visits over an average extent of 1,183 hectares, thereby addressing the imbalance in territorial jurisdiction that previously existed.

9. G.O.Ms.No.252, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare [VeNi4(2)] Department, dated 30.09.2025, reads as follows:

                   “(1)Field Level Visits should be conducted to assess the situation with regards to the crops, the farming techniques to be followed, the use of pesticides, crop diseases and appropriate advice should be provided to the farmers.

                   (2)Officials should meet with all the farmers of the village and enquire with about the issues they face. If any specific issue is expressed by any farmer, then they should be provided with required advice on the very same day.

                   (3)The required training with regards to the use of farming techniques should be provided to farmers within 15 days of approaching the contact centre. They should be provided with information regarding the schemes introduced by the state government.

                   (4)Weather related announcements should be provided to the farmers once every 15 days.

                   (5)The field level officers are responsible for the proper implementation of the schemes related to farmers in the villages allotted to them. They are responsible for providing awareness to farmers about government schemes, selection and registration of beneficiaries and monitoring whether the schemes are actually useful to the beneficiaries.

                   (6)The field level officers are also required to upload the details regarding their visits such as the number of farmers visited and the information about farming techniques and pesticides provided to them. Such details would be monitored using real time technology and dashboard."

10. The Government Order adequately addresses the concerns relating to seniority and expressly preserves the existing service conditions. The Government Order clearly stipulates that there shall be no change with regard to the leave-sanctioning authority or salary-disbursing authority and that matters relating to promotion and retirement shall continue to be governed by the existing procedures. It further provides that disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with the Rules governing the respective posts and that there shall be no change in the reporting authority. Moreover, there is no alteration in the departmental structure or cadre management, and all service conditions continue to be governed by the procedures already in force. Both Assistant Agricultural Officers and Assistant Horticultural Officers continue to be governed by their respective service rules. The Government has merely taken a policy decision to redistribute officers for the purpose of ensuring effective field visits and improved interaction with farmers throughout the State. As long as there is no change in service conditions, it cannot be contended that the officers have been adversely affected by the implementation of the scheme.

11. A challenge to the very same scheme had been made by the Tamil Nadu Assistant Horticultural Officers Association and the Tamil Nadu Horticultural Officers Welfare Association before the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.Nos.35946 and 50416 of 2015 and W.P.No.2978 of 2026. By order dated 03.03.2026, the said writ petitions were dismissed as follows:

                   “29. The main grievance canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the AAOs in the Horticulture Department are interchanged with the Agriculture Department and that they are made to do the work of the Agriculture Department. In essence, the cadre of the staff members of the Horticulture Department is sought to be made over to the Agriculture Department and, therefore, there is cadre change, which is impermissible according to the service rules governing the different departments.

                   30. The scheme envisaged under the aforesaid Government Orders relates to the contact between the farmer and the officers of the Agriculture/Horticulture Departments, which is for better improving the efficiency and productivity of the farmers. Though it is the stand of the petitioner that agriculture and horticulture are two different faculties and both require specialised training and education and one is not interchangeable with the other, there is no quarrel with regard to the said position. Agriculture and Horticulture are two different faculties relating to cultivation, but farming is a unified action, which is undertaken in both agriculture and horticulture. May be the manner in which farming is done may vary slightly, but farming is the predominant activity in both and the persons, who undertake the work are predominantly farmers. Therefore, differentiating agriculture and horticulture in terms of farming may not be proper and, therefore, if the scheme is floated and the officers of both the departments have been utilised for the purpose of educating the farmers and also providing them with support to increase their effectiveness and productivity, which in turn will have a lasting impact on the growth and sustainable development of the community, such an act undertaken by the Government cannot be said to be impermissible or against the provisions of the relevant service rules.

                   31. In this backdrop, this Court perused the Government Orders, which have been issued and which are put in issue before this Court through which the Horticulture officers as also the Agriculture Officers have been utilised to carry on unified work of increasing the efficiency of the farmers and also to help the farming community, there is a clear cut prescription in the manner in which the utilisation of the officers of the two different departments have been planned to be undertaken.

                   32. In fact, there is a specific provision in the Government Orders, which make it necessary for creating a group for each taluk which is to be manned by the respective Assistant Director from both the Horticulture and Agriculture Departments. Therefore, the scheme clearly enumerates that the staff members and officers of both the departments will be put to work under their respective heads and that there is no transgression of work or the authority to whom they would be reporting. Therefore, whatever work that is entrusted to be performed by the said staff/officers relates to a farming activity, which squarely falls within the activity, which is to be undertaken by the said officers and the expert studies, which have been undergone by the said officers would not in any way affect the functioning of the said officers, when the scheme only envisages that better efficiency in handling technologies and upliftment of farming sector alone is the criteria under the scheme.

                   33. The last of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner relate to change in cadre and the non-application of the respective service law to the said cadre, which strikes at the service condition of the petitioners.

                   34. In this regard, a look at the Government Orders, which have been issued clearly shows that administrative directions have been issued governing the working conditions of the staff members of both the agriculture and horticulture department. A perusal of the same reveals that the service conditions, leave, salary, promotion, etc., of the staff members of the respective departments are safeguarded and have been retained with the authorities under the respective departments, meaning thereby, that there is no transgression of the responsibilities of one department by the other department. Therefore, the apprehension raised by the petitioners with regard to alteration of their service condition is clearly a misconceived notion.

                   35. Further, it is to be pointed out that based on intelligent differential, persons from two cadres can be allowed to discharge a particular work and there could be no embargo on adopting such a course so long as the different cadres are maintained in the same sphere without there being any transgression. In the present case, the Government Orders clearly stipulates that the service conditions of the different cadres will remain the same and there will be no transgression and the authority to whom they report along with their service conditions relating to appointment, promotion, transfer would be the same and such being the specific case, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced and the decisions relied on, on behalf of the petitioners, which have been noted above, would not be of any benefit to advance the case of the petitioners.

                   36. The scheme that has been floated by the Government is for the betterment of the farming community, which would, in turn, lead to the betterment of the standard of living and livelihood of the common man and only with that object in mind, the scheme has been framed and the agriculture and horticulture departments, which are entrusted with the task related to farming have been roped in to train the farmers and make them utilise the beneficial technological innovations for better productivity. May be the number of staff in the agriculture department is much more than those in the horticulture department, but when the service sought to be done through the scheme envisaged in the Government Orders is one that squarely falls within the activity which is also being done by the Horticulture Department, merely because the farmers, who do agriculture have been sought to be equipped by the members from the horticulture department, it cannot be said that there is change in work and cadre, which is not what the Government Order reflects. May be the work turn out in the agriculture department is much more than what is done by the horticulture department due to the vast expanse of the lands in which agricultural activity is being undertaken. However, when the Government, as a policy decision, for the betterment of its citizen has crafted a scheme in and by which the farming community is targeted to be uplifted, this Court cannot scuttle the process by pricking holes in the scheme and make the same unachievable. What is sought to be done by the petitioner is only to put spokes in the wheels of proper movement of the scheme, which has been devised for the upliftment of the farmers. Therefore, this Court, for the reasons aforesaid, does not find any infirmity or perversity or arbitrariness in the Government Orders impugned herein and the said Government Orders are also not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

                   37. In the result, all the writ petitions fail and, accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

12. It is also brought to our notice that no challenge has been made to the policy decision itself. The Government has merely taken a policy decision to redistribute officers working in the Horticulture Department based on the extent of cultivable area and to facilitate effective field visits. Such action cannot be said to violate either the service conditions or the statutory rules. On the contrary, the existing service conditions continue to be protected under the respective service rules.

13. In the absence of any alteration to the service structure or service benefits, and in view of the fact that an earlier challenge to the policy decision has already failed before this Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petitions. We therefore find no merit in these Writ Appeals.

14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants expressed concern that adequate training has not been imparted to the officers for effectively discharging their duties in the redistributed areas. Since the scheme contemplates field-level engagement in agricultural activities, it is always open to the Government to provide such training as may be necessary wherever required.

15. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.