Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024appeals appears to be a larger one, on close reading of the issue, we could easily cull-out the main threat in the issue, which is simple in nature and we are trying to explain the same in the following paragraphs of the order. I. Background of the case:-4.1. The respondents/writ petitioners and the impleaded respondents are working as Deputy Directors of Agriculture. It is to be noted that, initially they entered into service as Agricultural Officers in two separate wings, called the “Agricultural Officers (Extension)” wing and “Agricultural Officers (Research)” wing by selection through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.4.2. Though the qualifications for both these posts are one and the same, on appointment, these two wings of Agricultural Officers are separately dealt with by two different Service Rules. The post of Agricultural Officers (Extension) is governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service Rules and the post of Agricultural Officers (Research) is governed by the Tamil Nadu Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, all their service conditions are separately dealt with by the respective Service Rules. 4.3. From the initial position of Agricultural Officers, they have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024been promoted to the post of Assistant Directors of Agriculture and subsequently, reached the post of Deputy Directors of Agriculture.4.4. In the meanwhile, the appellant Government/Department, in the year 2007, took a policy decision and issued the Government Order bearing G.O.(Ms) No.537, Agriculture (AA 8) Department, dated 24.12.2007 [in short, hereinafter referred to as “G.O.No.537”]. The import of G.O.No.537, in a nutshell, would be that the Government thought it fit to merge these two wings, namely the “Agricultural Officers (Extension)” and “Agricultural Officers (Research)”, which is otherwise called as “Agricultural Chemist”, into one on functional basis so that the expertise in both these wings could be utilized by the Department and there could be a chance of inter-transfer between these two wings. 4.5. In order to give effect to the said policy decision taken by the Government, the said G.O.No.537 was issued, where, inter alia, the following conditions have been imposed in paragraph 17 of G.O.No.537:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20244.6. The first and foremost condition that has been imposed through G.O.No.537 is that the Extension wing and the Research wing in the Department of Agriculture shall be functionally merged, however, the seniority and the service conditions of the staff of the Extension/Research wings, for the purpose of promotional opportunities, shall be continued in the respective existing cadre till the incumbents retire from service. Thereafter, there will be only one cadre which will take care of both Extension and Research activities in the Agriculture Directorate and the entry level post should be “Agricultural Officer” only. This important condition, as provided under G.O.No.537, has been implemented all along from 2007 till date.4.7. The resultant position would be that, even though the Extension wing and the Research wing got merged functionally, insofar as the seniority in both these wings is concerned, it should be separately maintained, as has been hitherto maintained, because, each of these wings are governed by separate Service Rules. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20244.8. In other words, the inter se seniority among the incumbents in the Extension wing will be intact and it would not get changed. Like that, the inter se seniority in the Research wing would be intact and would not be changed. Therefore, whenever promotional opportunities are created to the next higher cadre, the posts which are earmarked for the Extension wing for promotional category will be filled up by the feeder category candidates of the same wing, that is the Extension wing. 4.9. For instance, if there are ten posts of Deputy Directors available in the Extension wing, all these ten posts would be filled up on the basis of seniority, maintained separately by the Extension wing. Suppose, the Extension wing candidates are seniors among themselves and comparatively, some of them are juniors to the Research wing candidates, unmindful of such seniority between these two wings, the seniors in the Extension wing alone would be considered and vice versa.4.10. This patten, having been followed for all these years, these kind of promotions have been given to Officers belonging to both the wings by issuance of various Government Orders from time https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024to time. While that being so, insofar as the promotion for the Panel Year 2024-25, there are 32 posts of Joint Directors in Extension wing and 4 posts of Joint Directors in the Research wing and in order to fill up these vacancies and also to fill up the vacancies of 4 posts of Additional Directors in the Extension wing and 1 post of Additional Director in the Research wing, Panels were prepared among the eligible candidates from the feeder category based on wing-wise inter se seniority. 4.11. When this move was made, sensing the same, the respondents/writ petitioners, who all belong to the Research wing, working as Deputy Directors, approached this Court by filing the writ petitions separately with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellant Department to consider the candidature of the respondents/writ petitioners also for the purpose of promotion to the post of Joint Directors, unmindful of the wing-wise inter se seniority. That means, if the Research wing Deputy Directors are senior to some of the Extension wing Deputy Directors, these Research wing Deputy Directors also shall be considered based on the inter se seniority among these two wings. That was the case of the respondents/writ petitioners. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20244.12. With this plea, the respondents/writ petitioners approached the Writ Court and the Writ Court, while considering their case, ultimately allowed the said writ petitions by making the following directions:-“11. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to call for service particulars and confidential reports for preparation of panel for the promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture from the wing of the petitioner viz., Deputy Director of Agriculture (Research) and communicate the same to the first respondent for preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture in order to maintain common seniority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”4.13. By virtue of the directions issued in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, it became inevitable for the appellant Department to consider the candidature of the respondents/writ petitioners or any other persons placed similar to that of the respondents/writ petitioners, belonging to the Research wing, to be placed in the Panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director, unmindful of the wing they belonged.4.14. Therefore, aggrieved over the directions issued by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order, these writ appeals have been filed by the appellant Department. That is how all these intra-Court appeals have come up for hearing before this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024Court and are disposed of by this common order. 4.15. When some of the writ appeals came up for hearing before our predecessor Bench on 14.11.2024, the Division Bench has given the following interim orders:-“9. We find merit and substance in the aforesaid ground raised by the appellants/State. Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay of the impugned order of the Single Bench for a period of eight weeks. It is made clear that the appellants shall proceed further with regard to promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture as per paragraph 17(i) of G.O. (Ms.) No.537, supra. However, the same would be subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ appeals. Notice.” 4.16. By virtue of this interim order, as stay was granted against the order impugned of the Writ Court and the appellant Department was permitted to proceed further with regard to the promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture as per paragraph 17.1 of G.O.No.537, the appellant Department proceeded to complete the promotion process, thereby, the post of Joint Directors, that is 32+5 as stated supra, has been filled up by way of promotion. II. Case of the Research wing Officers:-5.1. In this context, Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned Senior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners filed a comparative chart between Deputy Directors, belonging to these two wings, wherein, he is able to demonstrate that these 35 incumbents, presently working as Deputy Directors (Research), initially entered into service as Agricultural Officers in the years 1990 or 1991 and they have got promoted to the post of Deputy Directors (Research) in the year 2016/2017/2018 and some of them in 2019 and March, 2020. Whereas, in respect of the 21 candidates belonging to the Extension wing, who entered into service as Agricultural Officers in the year 1993, got promoted to the post of Deputy Directors in the year 2020 or 2021. 5.2. Therefore, it is the strong case on the part of the respondents/writ petitioners, as projected by the learned Senior Counsel, that from the entry level, till date, the seniors who belong to the Research wing have not been considered for promotion to the next higher post, that is Joint Director of Agriculture, and these kind of promotional activities undertaken by the appellant Department, ignoring the overall seniority of the Research wing would go or run against the basic facet of jurisprudence that seniors should be considered for promotion, if it is purely a promotional post.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20245.3. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that these incumbents, though originally belong to Research wing, by virtue of the functional merger of these two wings vide G.O.No.537 from 2007, they have been working in the Extension wing. Therefore, experience wise also, these incumbents have rich experience in both the wings and also they are seniors comparatively. Hence, in all fairness, their candidature should have been considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture, which, in fact, was directed by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order and hence, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners prays not to show any indulgence against the order impugned and accordingly he wants to sustain the impugned order. III. Case of the Appellants & Extension wing Officers:-6.1. On the other hand, Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respective impleaded respondents, who belong to the Extension wing, would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024make combined submissions that, insofar as the initial entry to the Department by the Officers belonging to these two wings is by way of a separate entry and right from day one, these incumbents have been dealt with by two separate Service Rules as stated supra. 6.2. Two separate seniority lists, right from the beginning, are maintained and only for having a functional merger, G.O.No.537 was issued, where, very categorically, the Government has made it clear that the seniority and the service conditions of the staff of Extension/Research wing for the purpose of promotion opportunities shall be continued in the respective existing cadre till the incumbents retire from service. 6.3. Therefore, the very import of the policy decision, which has been reflected in G.O.No.537, according to the learned Government Advocate, the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel, who support the case of the appellant, is that functional merger would noway alter the seniority, that is the inter se seniority, among the incumbents in a particular wing.6.4. For instance, among 100 Officers, inter se seniority could be maintained, but noway, the inter se seniority could be merged https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024for the convenience of the other wing, namely the Research wing.6.5. This since has been made clear in G.O.No.537 and based on the said Government Order, such functional merger since has taken place and was accepted by both the wings and based on such functional merger, since transfers have been given; postings have been given to both wings; these Extension wing Officers are posted at Research wing and vice versa and since this has been the practice for nearly seventeen years right from the year 2007, all of a sudden, this system cannot be changed or altered, that too detrimental to the Rule position, because their Services are still being governed by separate Service Rules. 6.6. The learned counsel and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective impleaded respondents and the learned Government Advocate would contend that, if the prayer sought by the respondents/writ petitioners is allowed or the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is accepted, that will run contra to the import of G.O.No.537, thereby, the very policy decision taken by the Government, which is reflected in paragraph 17.1 of the said Government Order, would get upset. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20246.7. More over, the import of G.O.No.537 has never been questioned by anyone so far and this Government Order and its import, having been accepted by both wings, has been acted upon. Hence, at this length of time, rethinking the decision taken by the Government in G.O.No.537 would not arise at all. Hence, the learned counsel and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective impleaded respondents, as well as the learned Government Advocate, would seek indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order, including the directions that have been issued by the Writ Court through the impugned order.IV. Observations of this Court:-7. We have given our anxious consideration to the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 8.1. In fact, the import of G.O.No.537 had come up for consideration before the Single Bench of this Court, where one of us (RSKJ) had an occasion to consider a connected issue in the matter of L.Sankararaaj and Anr. vs. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Anr.1, where, the Writ Court, by its order 1 W.P.(MD)Nos.11638 & 11640 of 2011https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024dated 15.02.2017, has found the following:-“24. That is the reason why for the year 2009-2010, two different Government Orders were issued. One is that G.O.(Ms).No.286 dated 08.12.2009, whereby 33 persons belonging to the Extension wing had been given promotion as Joint Directors. Like that, through G.O.(Ms.)No.37, dated 26.02.2010, four persons belonging to the Research wing had been given promotion as Joint Director of Agriculture. Like that, for the year 2010-2011, again two separate G.Os. were issued. One G.O.(Ms.) Number is 190, Agricultural Department dated 31.08.2010, whereby 34 persons had been given promotion in Extension Wing for the post of Joint Directors. Whereas, another G.O.(Ms.)No.296 of 2011 dated 06.12.2010 were issued, whereby three persons belinging to Research Wing had been given promotion to the post of Joint Director. Therefore, in view of these G.Os., having been issued, whereby number of persons, to the post of Joint Director, had been given promotion at various point of time and all these promotions were acted upon, no different interpretation than the one, as has been clarified at para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, can be given in respect of the import of Para-3 of the G.O.(Ms)No.163. Therefore, such question raised https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024on behalf of the petitioners through their counsel, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same is rejected.”8.2. In the said L.Sankararaaj case (cited supra), the issue was that, the writ petitioners therein were originally appointed as Agricultural Officers (Extension) and subsequently, willingly, switched over to the Research wing. That was accepted and they had been working as Agricultural Officers (Research) and subsequently, when promotional opportunities came, they sought to get the seniority in the Extension wing instead of the Research wing for the reason that the number of posts in the Research wing were comparatively less. 8.3. That was the issue raised before the Writ Court in the said matter. While considering the same, one of us (RSKJ) in the said judgment dated 15.02.2017, found that G.O.No.537 has been fully acted upon, at least two times the said promotions have been awarded separately for the Officers belonging to both the wings, that is the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Therefore, the plea raised by the writ petitioners in those case was liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same was rejected. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 20249.1. The same position has again come up before this Court in this batch of writ appeals also. The reason being that, G.O.No.537, which was issued in the year 2007, has never been questioned by any of them till date. In fact, the import of G.O.No.537, having been accepted, was acted upon with the inherent concurrence of the incumbents belonging to both wings. Since promotions have been awarded right from the year 2009-10, till date and in each time, the promotions have been given based on the wing-wise seniority and at no point of time, the point of inter se seniority between these two wings has been raised.9.2. When that being the position, it cannot be stated at any stretch of imagination that the Government or the Department of Agriculture, while preparing the Panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture, violated the inter se seniority. Even though if some of the Deputy Directors working in the Research wing and who had been shifted to the Extension wing also, by virtue of the merger from the year 2007, and have earned rich experience in both these wings or are seniors to the Deputy Directors of the Extension wing, that would not ipso facto give any credence to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024incumbents of the Research wing to seek inter se seniority for the purpose of promotion. 9.3. This is the position which alone could emerge if we read the very first condition imposed in paragraph 17 of G.O.No.537. The reason being that, the terms “the seniority and the service conditions of the staff of the Research / Extension wing for the purpose of promotional opportunities shall be continued in the respective existing cadre till the incumbents retire from service” has made it abundantly clear that, at no stretch of imagination, till their services come to an end by way of superannuation of such persons who have already entered into service prior to the issuance of G.O.No.537, the seniority maintained by these two separate wings would be maintained intact and that would never be merged or compromised. 9.4. When that being the very core condition imposed by the Government while implementing the functional merger of these two wings, the said condition cannot be expected to be violated, merely because some of the senior incumbents could not get promotion. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Writ Court while issuing such https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024directions, by allowing the said writ petitions through the impugned common order, that “no juniors to the writ petitioners' wing or other wing are allowed to supersede or overlook the seniority for promotion to the posts of Assistant Director and Deputy Director of Agriculture and the Government Order is very clear that the posts of Assistant Director (Agriculture)/Assistant Director (Horticulture) in all the Directorates will be filled up by promotion from the cadres of Agricultural Officer/Horticultural Officer/Agricultural Officer (Research) taken together and by following common seniority based on the date of their regularization in the entry level posts as a one time measure” is a misconception on the issue. 9.5. Even though the learned Single Judge has referred to paragraph 10 of G.O.No.537, that would not confer any advantage or right on any of the incumbents, who belong either to the Extension wing or the Research wing, to seek seniority, that is inter se seniority, between the two wings. As such, the inter se seniority among these two wings has never been merged and it has been stated in paragraph 10 of the Government Order that transfers would be made to either wings and the merger would not affect the seniority, promotional prospects and the service conditions of each https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024cadre.V. Conclusion:-10.1. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the reasoning given by the Writ Court, as well as the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order for all the reasons we have discussed herein above. 10.2. We are also informed that pursuant to the interim order passed by our predecessor Division Bench by the order dated 14.11.2024 as well as on 19.11.2024, the appellant Government/Department of Agriculture has completed the process of giving promotion to 32+5, wherein 32 posts for Extension wing and 5 posts for Research wing and such promotional orders have been issued on 19.11.2024, which have also been placed before this Court for our perusal. 10.3. Pursuant to the promotional orders, all the promotees have joined in the promotional posts and they have been working. Therefore, the order impugned herein certainly would be erroneous and hence, is liable to be interfered with at our hands. Resultantly, the impugned common order stands set aside.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 202411.1. Though the claim now made by the respondents/writ petitioners in this batch of lis has been denied by virtue of allowing these writ appeals and the promotees, who belong to the Extension wing, have also been given promotion to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture, the fact remains that many of these incumbents belonging to the Research wing are seniors to the Officers of the Extension wing. 11.2. The Government cannot be short of sight on these facts which are always sighting at them. The reason being that, the very purpose of bringing G.O.No.537 itself is to give a functional merger to utilize the services of the Officers belonging in both the wings. By virtue of that, the Officers of the Research wing have been inducted into the Extension wing and they have also been working in the Extension wing for several years. Thereby, the very rich experience can be claimed by both the wings, as they have worked in both wings. 11.3. Especially, the Officers of the Research wing, more in numbers, have been working in the Extension wing. When that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024being so, their expertise shall be best used by the Agriculture Department, but, when promotion is opted for higher posts, the seniority, being the prime criteria, cannot be given a go-by. Therefore, it is high-time for the Government of Tamil Nadu, especially the Agriculture Department, to come forward to rectify this anomaly by reviewing the policy decision taken in the year 2007, as reflected in G.O.No.537. 12.1. While reviewing the policy decision, it is also open to the State Government to fix a quota rota rule in cyclic form, between these two wings, namely the Extension wing and the Research wing. Depending upon the cadre strength of each of the wings, the quota rota rule can be fixed. 12.2. Suppose, in one particular Panel Year, the number of posts are very minimum or in single digit, the quota rota rule, to be fixed, may become incapable to implement. In that particular Panel Year, the cyclic system can be adopted. For instance, if the quota rota is fixed in 2:1 ratio and if there are only two Joint Director posts for a particular Panel Year, in cyclic system, it can be given to the Extension wing. For the next Panel Year, whatever the number https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024of posts comes in the same cadre, in the cyclic system, the next post will automatically go to the Research wing. By thus, the 2:1 quota rota rule, by way of cyclic system, can easily be implemented. 12.3. If this system is adopted, it will certainly minimize or reduce the heartburns of both these wings, as the incumbents in the feeder category would get a chance of getting promotion in their respective wings itself. This can be made possible even till the last person who entered into service prior to the issuance of G.O.No.537 retire from service and thereby, the issue would be taken care of. 13. This suggestion of ours is expected to be taken in right sense by the State Government and the Department of Agriculture and if this is implemented, by making necessary amendments to G.O.No.537 or by issuance of a fresh Government Order before the next Panel Year, ie., for 2025-26, that would be widely appreciated by all concerned. 14. With these observations and suggestions to the Government, we allow these writ appeals to the terms indicated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.33, 65 & 1192 of 2025 and 25558, 27654, 25581, 27655, 25524, 27656, 25949, 27657, 26352, 27659 & 27755 of 2024 are closed.(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 28.01.2025 Neutral Citation:Yes/NodrmTo:1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Agriculture – Farmers Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.11, 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389& 3572 of 2024R. SURESH KUMAR, J.AND C. SARAVANAN , J. (drm) W.A.Nos.11 & 15 of 2025 and3215, 3283, 3288, 3344, 3389 & 3572 of 202428.01.2025(½) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis