Madras HC dismisses plea against horticulture staff redeployment under scheme

The petitioners alleged that the agriculture and horticulture departments have separate service rules, and their redeployment to the agriculture department would affect their service conditions.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.(File photo | Express)
Updated on: 
2 min read

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by officials of the Horticulture department in Tamil Nadu, challenging their redeployment in the agriculture department for conducting field visits to disseminate technical information to farmers as part of the UATT (Uzhavar Aluvalar Thodarbu Thittam) 2.0 scheme.

The petitioners alleged that the agriculture and horticulture departments have separate service rules, and their redeployment to the agriculture department would affect their service conditions. They also claimed that the methods to maintain the agricultural and horticultural crops are entirely different, and therefore, they would not be capable of properly guiding the farmers about agriculture.

However, the additional advocate general contended that the UATT 2.0 scheme is a policy decision aimed at strengthening agricultural extension activities, ensuring equitable distribution of work among the field officers, and delivering information about technology and machinery to the farmers.

He also added that the G.O. dated September 30, 2025, which was challenged by the petitioners, itself safeguarded the administrative seniority, promotion prospects, and salary benefits of all the field officers, and there would be no change in the service conditions.

He also explained that the Assistant Horticultural Officers would have completed a diploma in Horticulture, which includes agriculture as an ancillary subject in their curriculum, and these officers would also be given refresher training in Agriculture and Horticulture when required.

Hearing both sides, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the above scheme is a policy decision of the government and the court cannot interfere with it unless it is found to be irrational or arbitrary. Moreover, the petitioners, being government servants, have to realise their responsibility to implement government schemes effectively by making field visits, and they cannot claim a vested right to serve in one particular place where they are comfortable, he further said.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com