Judgment :- S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. In both the writ petitions as common relief has been sought for and common question of law involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners were in the service of the State in its Highways Department. The petitioner, Govindaraj was appointed on regular basis on compassionate grounds as Office Assistant in the Highways Department, Perambalur, where he joined service on 16th March, 1995. Similarly, the other petitioner, Muthukrishnan was also appointed on regular basis on compassionate grounds in the Highways Department, Perambalur and joined on 20th Oct., 1995. They were declared surplus by the Highways Department, by order dated 26th July, 2006, but they were not disturbed and, later on, by order dated 6th Feb., 2008, they were transferred under the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, in view of order dated 26th July, 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, District Collector, passed the order of transfer on 6th Feb., 2008 without noticing that there were posts under Divisional Engineer, Highways, Ariyalur, to accommodate them and they were not excess to the strength for transferring them to other Department. 3. According to the 1st respondent, District Collector, Ariyalur, the Finance Department, vide G.O. Ms. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, and the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Ariyalur, by letter dated 24th April, 2006, had sent a list of 14 surplus Office Assistants, including the petitioners. Accordingly, by order dated 26th July, 2006, the petitioners and others, including two persons of Survey and Settlement Department were drafted in the list as surplus Office Assistants and copies were communicated to individual concerned. In the meantime, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, called for names for appointment of 5 Office Assistants through the employment exchange. Since, surplus Office Assistants were available the 5 surplus Office Assistants were allotted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate by proceeding dated 10th Oct., 2007 according to their seniority and it was informed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10th Oct., 2007. The Principal District Judge, Perambalur, by his letter dated 9th Jan., 2008, had also called for names to appoint 4 Office Assistants through employment exchange. Already 11 remaining surplus Office Assistants were in the list and instead of forwarding fresh candidates, the petitioners and 2 others were allotted to the Principal District Judge Court by proceeding dated 6th Feb., 2008. The Principal District Judge, Perambalur, by his letter dated 9th Jan., 2008, had also called for names to appoint 4 Office Assistants through employment exchange. Already 11 remaining surplus Office Assistants were in the list and instead of forwarding fresh candidates, the petitioners and 2 others were allotted to the Principal District Judge Court by proceeding dated 6th Feb., 2008. Accordingly, the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, has given posting to the Office Assistants in his Court. The petitioners were relieved from the previous station on 31st March, 2008 and joined their new post on 20th April, 2008. Similar stand has been taken by the 4th respondent, Principal District Judge, Perambalur. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the Mofussil Courts (Civil & Sessions) have separate cadre(s) of its own. Presiding Officers of the Courts concerned (Principal District Judge herein) is the appointing authority. It is not a combined cadre post with the State Government, and has nothing to do with the Highways Department of the State. The Collector of any District, including the District Collector, Perambalur, has no jurisdiction to make appointment or posting against one or other post of ministerial staff, including Office Assistants in any of the Moffusil Courts of the State. 6. In fact, similar matter fell for consideration before this Court from time to time wherein this Court, having noticed G.O. Ms. Nos745 and 746, both dated 22nd Sept., 1995 in and by which the State Government made provisions for allotment of surplus Office Assistants working in various Government Offices in the Districts to other departments. The Court held that the same has no relevancy with the Mouffsil Courts in the light of the rules applicable to the Mouffsil Courts. Under the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, for appointment against ministerial staff, names are to be called for from the employment exchange. Appointment can be made only by direct recruitment or by transfer from other departments within the same Mouffsil Court or from other Mouffsil courts. Thus, according to us, there was no occasion for the District Collector, Perambalur, to forward the list of surplus Office Assistants, including the petitioners to the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, for their appointment. Appointment can be made only by direct recruitment or by transfer from other departments within the same Mouffsil Court or from other Mouffsil courts. Thus, according to us, there was no occasion for the District Collector, Perambalur, to forward the list of surplus Office Assistants, including the petitioners to the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, for their appointment. However, their appointments by transfer under the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, being not under challenge, we are not declaring the same illegal in the present case. 7. It has been brought to our notice that the State Government, by an order issued by the Governor of State in G.O. Ms. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, revised the fixation of norms for employment of Office Assistants in all Government Offices. As per the previous Government Order, one Office Assistant used to be allotted for 15 ministerial staff, excluding Office Assistant attached to officers. Under new norms circulated vide G.O. Ms. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, it was decided to allot one office assistant, excluding the office assistant attached to the officers, for 12 ministerial staffs, i.e., in the ratio of 12:1. 8. The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Ariyalur, under whom the petitioners were working, by his letter Na.Ka. No.778/2006/A3 dated 30th July, 2008, has intimated the District Collector, Perambalur, that as per the latest norms intimated vide G.O. Ms. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, more Office Assistants are required in his office and thus there is no excess. It appears, for the same very reason, though the petitioners were declared surplus on 26th July, 2006, but they were allowed to continue in their parent office for more than 1 ½ years and were provided with salary. Though the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the District Collector, Perambalur, but by impugned order dated 11th/12th June, 2008, without taking into consideration the revised norms of Office Assistants fixed by G.O. Ms. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, the impugned order dated 11th/12th June, 2008 was issued. The aforesaid act on the part of the District Collector reflects non-application of mind. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 11th/12th June, 2008, and remit the matter to the District Collector, Perambalur, for fresh consideration. No.128 dated 21st Feb., 2006, the impugned order dated 11th/12th June, 2008 was issued. The aforesaid act on the part of the District Collector reflects non-application of mind. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 11th/12th June, 2008, and remit the matter to the District Collector, Perambalur, for fresh consideration. The said officer will take into consideration the letter dated 30th July, 2008, written by the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Ariyalur and will pass appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners may file a fresh representation enclosing a copy of letter dated 30th July, 2008 written by the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Ariyalur along with a copy of this order. The Principal District Judge, in his turn, will pass consequential orders, if any. Both the writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.