Redeployment of higher-cadre employees must be to equivalent posts carrying the same pay scale.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Annamalai University on 5 March 2004 after obtaining a B.E. degree in Mechanical Engineering. He subsequently obtained an M.Sc. in Computer Science and a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering, and was promoted as an Assistant Professor in 2010.

Pursuant to the Government’s decision under G.O.(D) No.106, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 6 April 2023, to redeploy surplus staff of Annamalai University, the petitioner was appointed on an agreement basis for three years and posted as a Lecturer in the Government Polytechnic College, Uthangarai, by order dated 18 April 2023. He was consequently relieved by Annamalai University on 24 April 2023.

The petitioner challenged the transfer/redeployment order and the consequential relieving order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that an Assistant Professor had been posted to a lower cadre post. The respondents defended the action as part of a policy to accommodate surplus staff without termination or retrenchment.

The petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision in Annamalai University v. A. Akila, W.A. No.1309 of 2024 etc., decided on 24 March 2025, which directed redeployment to similar or equivalent posts carrying the same pay scale.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and reasonableness of the impugned administrative orders.

It applied the principle that redeployment or absorption of surplus employees should ordinarily be to a similar or equivalent post carrying the same scale of pay and should not result in placement in a lower cadre.

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Annamalai University v. A. Akila, which directed that the concerned employees be redeployed to similar or equivalent posts in Government departments carrying the same scale of pay, while preserving their service and employment benefits.

G.O.(D) No.106 dated 6 April 2023 constituted the administrative basis for redeployment, but did not preclude judicial scrutiny of the manner in which the policy was implemented.

The Court distinguished between the validity of redeployment itself and the legality of posting the petitioner to a lower cadre. The petitioner did not object to redeployment as such; his grievance was that an Assistant Professor had been placed in a lower-level post as Lecturer in a Polytechnic College.

Applying the principle laid down in A. Akila, the Court held that redeployment must be to a similar or equivalent post carrying the same scale of pay.

The respondents’ contention that A. Akila concerned non-teaching staff was rejected, since the relevant principle related to the manner of redeployment and was not confined to non-teaching employees.

The Court also rejected the objection that the petitioner had not challenged G.O.(D) No.106, observing that the challenge was directed only against the consequential orders placing him in a lower cadre, not against the Government’s decision to redeploy surplus staff.

It held that the petitioner could not be redeployed to a lower cadre post and directed that, if necessary, the respondents may redeploy him to a similar or equivalent post in any Government Department, taking into account the ratio of A. Akila and ensuring the same scale of pay.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.