The Director of Agricultural Marketing was made the appointing authority for the post of Supervisor under the Special Rules.
The appellant is shown at Sl.
Thereafter, the Thanjavur Market Committee by its Resolution No.229/84 85 dated 22.9.84 declared the probation of the appellant with effect from 24.3.83 forenoon .
As an upshot of that order of the Government, the Director of Agricultural Marketing issued proceeding on June 28,1991 purporting to repatriate the appellant to his parent Market Committee, Madurai.
The order of the Director transferring the appellant to District Market Committee, Madurai on the ground that it was his parent Committee, in the absence of any specific rule authorising him to do so, was clearly illegal.
In 1982 83, there were 17 vacancies of Supervisors in Thanjavur Market Committee.
The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Market Committee, Madurai on July 22, 1976.
It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders in GOMs No.194 Agriculture dated March 15, 1991 treating each District Market Committee as a separate unit.
The Director was, therefore, justified in withdrawing the illegal order.
The assessee purchased poppy seeds against Declarations under Form ST 17 which indicated that the purchases were for the purpose of resale within the State.
The companytentions of Mr.T. Raja, learned companynsel for the appellant, are that the appointment of the appellant by transfer as Supervisor under Rule 203 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1962 for short the 1962 Rules and his subsequent regularisation would make him an employee of the Thanjavur Market Committee and for that reason declaration of companypletion of probation was also made by the Committee.
That order is the subject matter of the present appeal.
The Market Committee passed Resolution No.12/82 83 on 17.3.83 appointing them as Supervisors and on March 18, 1983 in Proceeding No.1 E1/893/83, the Secretary of Thanjavur Market Committee issued orders of their appointment.
His repatriation to the District Market Committee, Madurai on the ground that it was his parent Committee was wholly illegal for the simple reason that after formation of centralised Marketing Subordinate Service the companycept of the parent companymittee and the borrowing Committee got obliterated.
In view of Rules 7 and 10, referred to above, the appointment of the appellant by the Thanjavur Market Committee which was valid under the 1962 Rules then in force, remained valid even under the special Rules.
After calling for options from the eligible staff of district Market Committees, the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Trichirapalli transferred the appellant along with others to Thanjavur Market Committee for their appointment as Supervisors.
A4.16887/91, the Director cancelled his earlier proceedings of 28.6.91.
It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders in GOMs 194 on 15.3.91 directing that each Market Committee shall be treated as separate unit.
The appellant who was already working as a Supervisor in Thanjavur Market Committee on March 15,1991 was entitled to companytinue as Supervisor of that Market Committee and he companyld number have been treated as employee of the District Market Committee, Madurai in which he was initially appointed.
The appellant made a representation to the Director of Agricultural Marketing against his repatriation and by order dated 9.7.91 in Proceeding No.
The O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 19.6.92.
Challenging the companyrectness of the proceeding of July 9, 1991, respondents 4 to 8 herein filed O.A.No.2605/91 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras.
By an order issued on November 17, 1981 the Government of Tamil Nadu declared that all the persons working in various district Market Committees were Government servants or would be treated as Government servants with effect from that date.
E1/13639/84 dated 26.7.84 issued by the Secretary of the said market Committee, the services of the appellant as well as the other Supervisors were regularised with effect from 23.12.81 pursuant to the Resolution No.139/84 84 of the Market Committee dated 21.7.84.
The appellant was appointed as Supervisor by the companypetent authority in 1983 and that was saved by amendment of Rules in GOMs No.206 Agriculture Department dated 18.3.91.
After remand, on January 11,1995, the Tribunal allowed the application of the said respondents holding that on appointment as Supervisor of Thanjavur Market Committee the appellant did number acquire any right and his subsequent regularisation and companypletion of probation did number make him the regular incumbent of Thanjavur Market Committee.
The third respondent in the said O.A. is the appellant.
In Proceeding No.
By judgment and order of this Court dated September 7, 1994, the order of the Tribunal dated 19.6.92 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
No.14 in the said proceedings.
The appellant assailed the validity of the order of the Tribunal before this Court in Civil Appeal No.4221/93.
By Rule 2, the Special Rules were given retrospective effect from November 17,1981.
Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 Act No.23 of 1959 for short the Act various district Market Committees came into being.
