Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged an order dated 07.10.2025 by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, rejecting the petitioner's request to be relieved from service as Typist in the District Munsif Court, Uthangarai, to enable him to rejoin the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department as Fireman. The petitioner had originally been appointed as Fireman on 09.06.2022 and completed probation. With prior permission of the Fire and Rescue Services Department, he participated in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Combined Civil Service Examination-IV, was selected as Typist, and posted to Judicial Department at Krishnagiri District on 07.04.2025. He was relieved from Fire Services on 16.04.2025 and joined Judicial Services on 17.04.2025. Due to personal reasons, he submitted an application on 01.09.2025 seeking permission to be relieved from service to rejoin as Fireman. The Principal District Judge rejected this request in a non-speaking order, which became the subject of the writ petition. The central legal issue was whether the rejection order violated Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. That section provides that a member of a service selected by direct recruitment for appointment in any other service of the Government or other organizations shall hold service right in the former service for a period not exceeding one year from the date of relief from the former service. The court noted that the petitioner was relieved from Fire and Rescue Services Department on 16.04.2025, and his application was submitted on 01.09.2025, well within the one-year period. Additionally, the Directorate of Fire and Rescue Services Department had already granted permission to the petitioner to rejoin as Fireman by proceedings dated 08.10.2025. The court observed that the non-speaking order of the Principal District Judge rejecting the request was not in consonance with the spirit of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. The petitioner relied on the statutory right under Section 14 and the prior permission from the Fire Services Department to contend that rejection was arbitrary and illegal. The first respondent's order was non-speaking and did not address these aspects. The second respondent, Director General of Police, Fire and Rescue Services, was suo motu impleaded and represented by Special Government Pleader, who took notice. The court emphasized that the statutory provision creates a limited window of one year for a direct recruit to return to former service, and the petitioner acted within this window. Since the former department had already granted permission, there was no impediment to rejoining. The court found the rejection order unsustainable and allowed the writ petition. The High Court set aside the order dated 07.10.2025, allowed the writ petition, directed the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri to relieve the petitioner from service within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, imposed no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Government Servants - Service Right in Former Service - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Section 14 - The petitioner, initially appointed as Fireman on 09.06.2022, completed probation and with permission participated in TNPSC Combined Civil Service Examination-IV; after being selected as Typist and relieved from Fire Services on 16.04.2025, he sought to rejoin Fire Services within one year. Held that Section 14 entitles a direct recruit to hold service right in former service for one year from date of relief, and the application on 01.09.2025 was within that period (Paras 2-4). B) Administrative Law - Non-Speaking Order - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Principal District Judge rejected the petitioner's request in a non-speaking order without considering the statutory service right or the permission granted by the Fire and Rescue Services Department. Held that the non-speaking rejection order was not in consonance with the spirit of Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and was therefore quashed (Paras 4-7). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorarified Mandamus - Relief Direction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to relieve the petitioner within one week from receipt of order copy; no costs were awarded and connected miscellaneous petition was closed (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal District Judge's order dated 07.10.2025 rejecting the petitioner's request to be relieved from Typist post to rejoin Fireman violated Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and therefore liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri is set aside; the writ petition stands allowed; the first respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner from service by following the procedures, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act
- 2016 provides service right in former service for one year from date of relief
- a government servant selected by direct recruitment to another service holds right to former service for up to one year
- non-speaking order rejecting request to rejoin former service is contrary to statutory scheme when former department grants permission
- writ of certiorarified mandamus appropriate to quash invalid rejection and direct relief.
