Government Servant Cannot Be Penalised for Following a Valid G.O., Supreme Court Sets Aside Rs 25 Lakh Personal Cost

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan set aside Rs 25 lakh personal cost on a Tamil Nadu education official who acted on a then-valid government order restricting Group D recruitment.

The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court order imposing Rs 25 lakh in personal costs on C. Poorna Chandran, who was serving as Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu, at the time the disputed decision was taken. The High Court had directed that this sum be personally recovered from him as part of a total cost of Rs 50 lakh imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu. A division bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, deciding the appeal on 30 April 2026, held that a government servant cannot be made personally liable for acting in accordance with a government order that was valid at the relevant time. The Court also, in the interest of complete justice, set aside the remaining Rs 25 lakh cost imposed on the State.

The Dispute: Recruitment Restriction and Delayed Salaries

The controversy arose from the recruitment of employees on Group D posts at Sri G V G Visalakshi College for Women, the fourth respondent. At the time, the State Government had imposed a restriction on recruitment beyond sanctioned posts. Poorna Chandran, in his capacity as Director of Collegiate Education, declined to approve recruitment beyond 11 sanctioned posts, acting in accordance with G.O. No. 219 dated 24 October 2013.

The State Government subsequently permitted recruitment beyond the sanctioned strength, and appointments were made. The writ petitioner — one of those recruited — approached the Madras High Court when salaries were not paid. The High Court directed disbursal of salaries, and payments were eventually made.

However, the High Court went further. In its order dated 23 April 2025 in Writ Appeal No. 1273/2025, it imposed a total cost of Rs 50 lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu. Of this, Rs 25 lakh was directed to be personally recovered from Poorna Chandran on the ground that he had not disclosed, when present before the Court, the reason why he had not approved the recruitment of additional Group D employees.

The Appellant's Case: Acting Within the Four Corners of a Valid Order

Senior Counsel Mr. S. Sriram, appearing for the appellant, argued that Poorna Chandran had acted strictly within the constraints of the G.O. in force at the time. Only 11 posts were sanctioned, and he could not have granted approval for recruitment beyond that number. The Government itself later changed its position by issuing a fresh G.O., following which further recruitment was permitted. Counsel contended that the Government's subsequent clarification and approval could not, by itself, render the appellant personally liable.

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, supported the appellant's position. The State's counsel confirmed that what Poorna Chandran had done at his level was in accordance with the law operating at the relevant time, namely G.O. No. 219 dated 24 October 2013.

Why the High Court's Approach Was Flawed

The Supreme Court found substance in the appellant's contentions. It observed that the High Court “should have been conscious of the fact that a government servant cannot be made to take a stand against the Government.” The facts on record showed that a government G.O. was in operation at the relevant time, and the appellant had followed it by not permitting recruitment beyond 11 posts.

The Court identified two distinct reasons why personal liability could not be fastened on the appellant. First, the G.O. on which he had relied was valid when he acted on it. Second, the Government's subsequent approval for recruitment beyond 11 Group D posts was itself a consequence of the High Court quashing that very G.O., an event that occurred well after the appellant had passed his order. The approval, in other words, was not a repudiation of the appellant's decision but a response to a changed legal landscape.

Given these facts, the Court held that “no adverse liability can be fastened on the appellant, much less of imposition of heavy cost of Rs.25,00,000.”

Cost on the State: Complete Justice Over Technicality

After allowing the appeal and setting aside the personal cost, the Senior AAG made a further request: that the Court also interfere with the Rs 25 lakh cost imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court expressed surprise at this request. It pointed out that the State had been the appellant before the High Court when the impugned order was passed, yet had chosen to remain silent and had not supported its own officer who had acted as per law before the High Court.

Despite this criticism, the Court said that once it was satisfied on the merits, technicalities should not prevent complete justice between the parties. Since the reason for the State's later approval was the quashing of the G.O. by the High Court the same reason that absolved the appellant the Court found that the State was also entitled to relief. The Rs 25 lakh cost on the State was accordingly set aside as well.

The Court closed with a pointed observation directed at the Senior AAG: it expressed hope that he would inform the State of its responsibility as custodian of the public exchequer, since any costs ultimately come from public funds, and “public is absolutely innocent in the present matter.”

Order

Leave was granted and the civil appeal was allowed. The cost of Rs 25 lakh imposed personally on C. Poorna Chandran stands set aside. The cost of Rs 25 lakh imposed on the State of Tamil Nadu also stands set aside. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.