Kerala High Court
Sukumar N. Ommen vs Union Of India on 24 September, 2001
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, K. Balakrishnan Nair
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Writ Petition is preferred challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 815 of 2001. Petitioner who appeared in person approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a declaration that he is entitled to continue on deputation in the State of Kerala for a period of 5 years on the basis of the office memorandum dated 11.4.1991 issued by the Government of India. A direction was also sought for to the State Governments of Manipur, Tripura, Kerala and the Government of India to permit him to continue on deputation for the full period of five years as per the office memorandum dated 11.4.1991. A Writ of prohibition was also sought for against the Stage Government in giving effect to order dated 12.9.2001 repatriating him from the State of Kerala. Tribunal did not find any reason to grant the reliefs prayed for and dismissed the application against which this Writ Petition has been preferred. When the matter came up for hearing we heard the petitioner who appeared in person as well as the learned Advocate General.
2. Petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service belong to Manipur-Tripura joint cadre. He applied to the Government of India for deputation for a period of five years to the State of Kerala. Government of India after obtaining the concurrence of the State Governments of Manipur, Tripura and Kerala passed an order under Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1954 according approval of deputation of the petitioner from the I.A.S. (Joint) Cadre of Manipur - Tripura to the IAS Cadre of Kerala for a period of two years with effect from the date he joins the Government of Kerala. Petitioner reported for duty to the Government of Kerala on 22.9.1999. He was first appointed as Principal Secretary, Power, on 8.6.2000. Later as the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board for a short period. According to the petitioner he had to leave the said office due to some difference of opinion between him and the Minister of Electricity. Later he was posted as Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare on 4.12.2000 where he held the post for a short period. Later he was transferred and posted as Principal Secretary, Registration Department on 20th January, 2001. According to the petitioner, he was transferred from K.S.E.B. on 3rd October, 2000 on the basis of a report appeared in "The New Indian Express" dated 20th September, 2000 for which an explanation was called for from him by the Chief Secretary. He submitted a detailed reply on 5th November, 2000. There was a further direction to submit a fresh explanation which he did on 22nd November, 2000. Later he was informed by letter dated 30.7.2001 that the Government had decided to drop the disciplinary proceedings. According to the petitioner, Government dropped the said proceedings because there was no basis in the allegations levelled against him.
3. Petitioner had earlier made a request to the State Government for extension of the period of deputation vide letter dated 13.6.2001. Government of Kerala however, vide letter dated 3.7.2001 expressed its inability to agree to the request made by the petitioner for extension of deputation. Petitioner pointed out that in the case of another I.A.S. Officer by name Shri. Babu Rajeev of Meghalaya Cadre State Government allowed deputation for a period of three years. Petitioner submitted he is also entitled to similar treatment. Further the petitioner submitted that Tripura Government vide its letter dated 6.8.2001 have already written to the Government of India recommending his request for deputation to the Government of Kerala.
4. We are of the view that petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner belong to Manipur - Tripura Joint Cadre. Government of India after getting concurrence of State Governments of Manipur, Tripura and Kerala had issued notification dated 15.7.1999 under Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 according approval for deputation of the petitioner for a period of two years with effect from the date of this joining duty. He accordingly joined duty on 22.9.1999. That period is now over. No further order has been issued by the Government of India extending the period of deputation after getting approval from the respective States. Petitioner has no legal right to insist that he should allowed to continue on deputation after the period of deputation ordered by the Government of India is over. Terms of deputation of a cadre officer to be deputed to another State depends upon concurrence of the lending Government as well as the borrowing Government. The mere fact that the lending Government has accorded its approval does not mean that the borrowing Government have to give its approval. It depends upon variety of factors. The Central Government could exercise power under Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules only after getting approval from the respective States.
5. The main thrust of the petitioner's argument is based on the office memorandum dated 11.4.1991. We notice by the said office memorandum the Government of India have relaxed the guidelines under the Central Staffing Scheme in so far as the application of the Officers of the IAS belonging to the State Cadres of the North - Eastern States (Assam-Meghalaya, Manipur-Tripura and Nagaland) to the extent indicated therein. Question as to whether sanction should be accorded to a request made by a deputationist is clearly a policy matter to be taken by the respective Governments which falls within the realm of administrative decision making. Court cannot examine the legality or otherwise of the decision taken by the Government in that regard. Petitioner cannot be heard to contend since another officer was given a period of three years he should also be given the same period. Permission would be granted by the borrowing Government after taking into consideration the variety of facts which falls within the realm of executive. As far as this case is concerned State Government had already taken a view not to extend the period of deputation and the same was informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.7.2001. We are of the view the Tribunal of this Court is not justified in sitting in judgment over the correctness or otherwise of the said decision taken by the Government unless it is malafide or violative of any statutory rules.
6. Petitioner has now pointed out that he has only made a request to the Union of India for further deputation on the strength of the office memorandum dated 11.4.1991. It is also his case lending Government, i.e., Government of Tripura has recommended his deputation to the Government of India by letter dated 6th August 2001. We leave it to the Government of India to take a decision on the petitioner's request with which we express no opinion.
7. We therefore find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.