Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur

Hon Ble Dr. K.B. Suresh vs The Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 5 May, 2017

      

  

   

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
CIRCUIT SITTING: INDORE

Original Application No.201/00150/2017

Indore, this Friday, the 05th day of May, 2017

Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Prasanna Kumar Pradhan, Administrative Member

Vinod Dialani, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Dialani, Aged : 43 years, Occupation : Service, Deputy Director (Administration) (on deputation), Narmada Control Authority, Indore, R/o E-4, Narmada Colony, Scheme No.78, Vijay Nagar, Indore  452010 (MP).
	     - Applicant

(By Advocate  Applicant in person)
     V e r s u s
	
1. The Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2. The Central Board of Secondary Education, 2, Preet Vihar, Headquarters, New Delhi  110092 through its Chairman.

3. The Narmada Control Authority, Narmada Sadan Scheme No.74 B, Indore  452010 through its Executive Member.		
     - Responents

(By Advocate  Shri Akhil Godhay for respondent No.2 and Shri H.Y. Mehta for respondent No.3)

ORDER (Oral)

By Dr. K.B. Suresh, JM.-

Heard.

2. The matter relates to repatriation on deputation of employee coming by the notification issued by the Narmada Control Authority, which is for appointment on deputation and he was recruited for such a post following the no objection issued by the concerned authority.

3. It seems to be covered by the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v Union of India and Another, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 paragraph 13 of which is quoted her under:

13. Ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to another, one department to another, one organization to another, or one Government to another; in such case a deputationist has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. In such case, deputation does not result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the person continues to be a member of the parent service.

14. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment (recruitment) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who applies for appointment on deputation has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non-suitability or unsatisfactory work.

15. The present case is not a case of transfer on deputation. It is a case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was issued and after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining of most eligible selected candidate except on ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.

4. In the present case also the appointment of the petitioner was made through the selection process after following the selection process. Even we question the respondents about it, elaborate process was followed after screening him.

5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents could not have cancelled the applicants appointment except for the reasons which are permitted in the aforesaid judgment. Such reasons do not present themselves in the pleadings of the parties.

6. It is apparently also covered by several other judgment of Honble Apex Court where it has been held that when the reasons for repatriations are silent and no aspect has curtailed without any justifiable reason then such repatriation will not lie. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Apex Court in Union of India v S.N. Maity & Anr, Civil Appeal No.5983 of 2007.

7. Therefore, O.A is allowed. The repatriation order is quashed and the applicant shall remain till the date of repatriation is over. No costs.

(Prasanna Kumar Pradhan) (Dr. K.B. Suresh) Administrative Member Judicial Member am/-

OA 201/00150/2017