Kerala High Court
C.Gopal vs Director General
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 9 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1024/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
C.GOPAL, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. T. CHIDAMBARAM, NO. 2, NAGAPPAN STREET
KARANAI, PUDUCHERY ROAD, URAPAKKAM
KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT NIFT KANNUR CENTRE.
BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
NIFT CAMPUS, NEW DELHI - 110 016.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITURE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
NIFT CAMPUS, DHARMASHALA, MANGATTUPARAMBA
KANNUR, KERALA - 670 562.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 9 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------
P1-TRUE COPY OF THE O.A 1024/2014 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES IN
O.A.1024/2014 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES FILED I MARCH, 2015.
P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES FILED IN AUGUST, 2015.
P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A 1024/2014 DATED 07/10/2015 OF THE
HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
-------------------------------
O.P(CAT) NO.9 OF 2016
----------------------------------
Dated this the 13th January, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The petitioner was working as an Assistant at the NIFT Campus, Chennai under the respondents. While so he was selected as Research Assistant on contract basis. Annexure A1 that forms part of Ext.P1 is the appointment letter dated 25.9.2009. The petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant on contract basis for a period of three years. Thereafter, upon his request the petitioner was transferred and posted at Kannur as per Annexure A2 proceedings. While so, the petitioner was arrested consequent to which he was placed under suspension on 23/1/2012. Crime NoRC4(A)/ 2012/CBI/ACB/Cochin under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is pending against him. He was later on OP(CAT)9/2016 2 released on bail on 30.1.2012.
2. In the above circumstances, the respondents decided not to renew the petitioner's contract beyond 28.10.2012, on which date the term of the contract expired. Since the contract was decided not to be renewed, the petitioner was reverted to the regular post of Assistant with effect from 29.10.2012. He continued to be under suspension in the said post.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, upon termination of the contract he should be reverted to his original place of posting at Chennai. Instead he has been retained at Kannur. According to the petitioner, the said action is absolutely unjustified. Therefore, he had submitted a representation against his retention at Kannur. He had also moved the CAT seeking the issue of appropriate orders for the disposal of the representation. Accordingly as per order dated 24.9.2014 evidenced herein by Annexure A5 the representation of the petitioner was directed to be considered. OP(CAT)9/2016 3 Thereafter, the petitioner's claim was considered and has been rejected as per Annexure A7. The petitioner challenged Annexure A7 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.180/00192/2014. The CAT has after considering the claim of the petitioner found the same to be unsustainable. The petitioner challenges the said order of the CAT.
4. According to Shri. Vinod Vallikappan who appears for the petitioner the contract appointment that was given to the petitioner is akin to a deputation. Therefore, as in the case of an employee on deputation the incumbent would revert back to his original post on termination of such deputation. In the same manner, in the present case also when the authorities decided not to renew the contract appointment, he was entitled to revert back to his original place of posting at Chennai. However, he has been retained at Kannur without any authority. The said action according to the learned counsel is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5. Heard. This original petition comes up before us for OP(CAT)9/2016 4 admission. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as an Assistant as per Annexure R3 dated 11.12.2008, that forms part of Ext.P3. On the basis of Annexure R3 the petitioner had worked at NIFT, Chennai. It was while working so he had been appointed as a Research Assistant on contract basis. After the said appointment of his, at his own request he had obtained a transfer to the NIFT,Kannur. It was while working at Kannur that a criminal case was charged against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was also placed under suspension. Since the term of his contract had expired, he was retained at Kannur as an Assistant under suspension. Later on, his suspension has been revoked and he has joined duty.
6. Ext.P2 is the copy of the reply statement filed by the respondent in O.A.1024/2014. According to the statement, the stand of the respondents was that, the petitioner was part of an All India Service with a liability to be posted at any place, according to administrative exigencies. It is further stated OP(CAT)9/2016 5 that the services of the petitioner are required at the Kannur campus since the centre is suffering from an acute shortage of staff. It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself had obtained a transfer upon his request and secured a posting at Kannur. The respondents have, considering the exigencies, decided to retain the petitioner as an Assistant at Kannur. The said action cannot be found fault with. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he should revert as an Assistant upon termination of his contract, to his original positing at Chennai cannot be accepted. It is not necessary that the post in which he was working should have remained vacant throughout the period that he was working as an Assistant and was posted at Kannur. Even if his stint as a Research Assistant under contract could be compared to a service on deputation, what would happen is only that he would revert back to the post in which he was working before he was posted as a Research Assistant. He had been working as an Assistant before his posting as a Research Assistant. OP(CAT)9/2016 6 Therefore, he has been reverted as an Assistant. The question was to where he should be posted is a matter of discretion of the authorities concerned to be exercised on the basis of the exigencies of service as well as availability of vacancies. Therefore, we are not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the action of the respondents in retaining the petitioner as an Assistant at Kannur. The CAT has rightly declined interference with the impugned proceedings. If the petitioner is entitled for a transfer back to Chennai as per norms it shall be open for him to request for such a transfer.
For the foregoing reasons we find no grounds to entertain this original petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
Judge
jj /True copy/
OP(CAT)9/2016 7