Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sandesh Kumar S/O Shri Daryao Singh vs Union Of India Through on 5 November, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi OA No.1215/2014 OA No.1219/2014 OA No.1220/2014 Reserved on: 22.07.2014 Pronounced on:05.11.2014 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A) OA No.1215/2014 Shri Sandesh Kumar s/o Shri Daryao Singh, B-140, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 11 0 005 (PIS 135083). Applicant Versus Union of India through 1. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Sectt., North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director (Intelligence Bureau) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. 3. Director Sashastra Seema Bal Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India Bock No. V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Respondents OA No.1219/2014 Shri Nagesh Rana s/o Shri Ram Chand 28 G, Sector 4, Pusph Vihar, New Delhi 110 017 (PIS 135240). Applicant Versus Union of India through 1. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Sectt., North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director (Intelligence Bureau) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. 3. Director Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India Bock No. 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Respondents OA No.1220/2014 Mukesh Kumar s/o late Sh. Pohkar Mal, R/o H.No.919, Type-III, Sector 7, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 110 017 (PIS 135356) Applicant Versus Union of India through 1. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Sectt., North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director (Intelligence Bureau) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. 3. Director Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India Bock No. 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Respondents Presence: Sh. K.C. Mittal with Ms. Ruchika Mittal, counsel for applicants in all the three OAs Sh. T.C. Gupta, counsel for respondents in all the three OAs. O R D E R By Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A):
The instant three Original Applications belong to the same genre and arise from identical grievances, use similar reasoning and seek similar reliefs. They have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience OA No.1215/14 (Sandesh Kumar versus Union of India & Others) has been made the lead case as it is representative of the other two.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as CT/GD in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) and was subsequently appointed as HC/Tele in Sashtra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as SSB) on 29.07.1998. On 20.08.2010, the applicant applied for the post of SI/T, ACIO-II/WT with Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IB) on deputation. The parent department issued NOC relieving the applicant to join IB on deputation. Having been found eligible and fit, the applicant joined the IB as ACIO-II/WT for a period of three years on 04.09.2010 to be concluded on 03.09.2013. It is the case of the applicant that on 05.03.2013 he requested the borrowing department, that being respondent no.2, to consider his case for extension of deputation. The respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 27.09.2013 requested the SSB to convey necessary concurrence (NOC) of the competent authority for extending the applicants deputation period by another year i.e. from 04.09.2013 to 03.09.2014 (4th year). However, the applicant alleges that the respondents instead of extending his deputation by one year have decided to repatriate him on completion of his tenure in IB vide OM dated 28.03.2014 reciting therein that consequent upon completion of his deputation tenure in IB, Shri Sandesh Kumar, ACIO-II/WT, a deputationist SI/Tele, of SSB, is repatriated to his parent department and stands relieved of his duties from the Intelligence Bureau Hqrs. New Delhi with immediate effect with the direction to report for duty to the Assistant Director (Pers-III), DG, SSB, East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. A copy of this order was endorsed to the Deputy Director/Tech-VK, IB Hqrs, New Delhi with request to relieve the applicant with immediate effect positively, under intimation. It was further provided that in case the officer was not available in office for whatever reason, the order could be served at his residence.
3. The applicant has adopted the following grounds against alleged premature repatriation:-
(i) The first of the grounds is that since the parent department of the applicant has issued NOC for extension of deputation for a period of one year as sought by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, the applicant has a right to continue for further period of one year beyond 03.09.2013. The respondents are neither competent to curtail the extended period of deputation nor can the applicant be repatriated in the midst of the extended period in respect of which NOC has already been issued by the parent department and received by the borrowing department, particularly when the applicant has been performing his duties satisfactorily.
(ii) The second ground which the applicant has taken is that the applicant was recruited under the Recruitment Rules of 2004 and at the time of his joining IB, these rules were still in force which provided 10% quota for appointment by deputation. Subsequently, these Recruitment Rules came to be replaced by Recruitment Rules, 2011 vide which recruitment was to be made in the ratio of 60:40 by direct recruitment and promotion respectively. Admittedly, there is no provision for recruitment by deputation under the Recruitment Rules, 2011.
(iii) In the third place, the applicant submits that since he came on deputation to IB under the Recruitment Rules of 2004, he continues to be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2004. He is, therefore, entitled to be absorbed under the 10% quota pertaining to recruitment by deputation/absorption. The applicant further contends that it is certainly wrong on the part of the respondents to repatriate him prematurely without even allowing him to complete fourth year of deputation in respect of which NOC has already been issued by his parent department. The respondents, the applicant alleges, are biased as they did not even allow the mandatory period of three months notice prior to premature repatriation as provided in the OM dated 15.07.2010.
4. The applicant, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal:-
(i) Ratilal B Soni & Others versus State of Gujarat & Otehrs [1990 (Suppl) SCC 243]
(ii) Kunal Nanda versus Union of India & Others [JT 2000 (6) 574]
(iii) Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Others 2008 (8) SCC 725] and
(iv) Vinod Kumar versus Union of India & Others [OA No.4050/2012 decided on 11.03.2014].
5. The applicant has further submitted that in a similar case of one N.S. Raghav versus Union of India & Others [OA No.4266/2012 reserved for orders], this Tribunal has found justification and granted interim order of stay in his favour. It is the case of the applicant herein that all rules are to be applied retrospectively unless provided otherwise. The Recruitment Rules, 2011 do not talk of retrospectivity. As provided in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Masood Ahmed Khan & Others [2010 (9) SCC 496], justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, while in the case of Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Others (supra) it is provided that fairness, non-arbitrariness and natural justice continue to be the basic guiding principles. In the case of D.K. Yadav versus J.M.A. Industries Ltd. [1993 (3) SCC 259] it is held that even the administrative action which gives rise to civil consequences must be judged fairly.
6. The respondents have submitted their counter affidavit. The other facts of the case being admitted, the respondents submit that it was necessary to obtain approval of the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for extension beyond three years as per the instructions contained in DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010. The file was submitted before the respondent no.1 which rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that as per the extant Recruitment Rules, there is no provision for deputation and directed that the applicant be repatriated. The respondents further submit that as the sanctioned deputation tenure of the applicant had expired on 03.09.2013, he has been continuing in IB beyond the sanctioned deputation tenure. In this regard, the respondents relied upon the DOP&T OM dated 01.03.2011 whereby continuance of deputationist in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned deputation period has its own adverse implications for the deputationist with reference to increment, pension etc. Further, as the case of the applicant for extension of deputation period was not approved by the competent authorities, repatriation order was issued by the respondents on 28.03.2014 with a copy to the applicant through his controlling officer. However, on returning from leave on 31.03.2014, the applicant did not sign the attendance register and refused to accept his copy of repatriation order and left the office without any intimation. The respondents have also vehemently submitted that once the recruitment rules were notified in 2011, the previous recruitment rules of 2004 ceased to be in force and the new rules became operative and resultantly the persons, who were recruited under the Recruitment Rules, 2004 came to be governed by the new Recruitment Rules, 2011 with effect from the date of its promulgation, and that it is unreasonable on part of the applicant to contend that the persons recruited under the Recruitment Rules, 2004 would continue to be guided by these rules throughout the service tenure.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the applicant has been evading service of notice which is certainly an act unbecoming on his part. The learned counsel further argued that the respondents have acted strictly as per the recruitment rules and the provision of different OMs having the force of law, and that a deputationist has no right to continue beyond the sanctioned period of service. The learned counsel also added that since the new recruitment rules of 2011 do not provide for any absorption, repatriation of the applicant is fully justified.
8. We have patiently heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the contents of the pleadings as also the documents that have been adduced. On the basis of the above, the following issues emerge as being germane to the decision of this OA:-
1. Whether a deputationist has any right to continue on deputation and to get absorbed?
2. Whether the deputation of the applicant will continue to be governed by the Recruitment Rules of 2004 or the Recruitment Rules of 2011 would come into play?
3. Whether while effecting repatriation of the applicant, have the respondents violated any rules?
4. What relief, if any, could be granted to the applicant?
9. Insofar as the first of the issues is concerned, it is well recognized that a deputationist does not have any right to continue on deputation and unless the claim of deputationist for permanent absorption is based upon any statutory rules, regulations or orders having force of law at that point of time, he cannot succeed in his claim of permanent absorption in the borrowing department. This is supported by series of cases which include cases of Kunal Nanda versus Union of India & Anr. [2000 (5) SCC 362], Rameshwar Prasav Versus Managing Director, UP Rajakiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Others [JT 1999 (7) SC 44] and Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar & Others versus SI.G. of Police & Others [2002 (9) SCC 485]. In the case of Union of India versus S.A. Khaliq Pasa & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.368-369 of 2009], respondent no.1, a Head Constable in the State of Andhra Pradesh, who was on deputation to the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau ("SIB"), Ministry of Home Affairs, Hyderabad for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 09.03.1992, filed a representation in the year 2001 praying for his absorption. His representation for permanent absorption was rejected. Aggrieved, he filed Original Application before the Tribunal at its Hyderabad Bench, which was allowed with direction to give effect to the order of absorption, and sustained subsequently by the Honble High Court. The State went in appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Honble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision in Kunal Nanda versus Union of India & Another (supra) held that nothing was shown to substantiate that respondent had a statutory right to be absorbed in the appellants' services. However, considering the fact that since the respondent had already retired, the Honble Supreme Court, while upholding this principle, did not alter the order in the case.
10. In case of Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar & Ors. Vs. SI.G. of Police & Ors. (supra), the petitioner was a Head Constable of Gujarat Police, who was brought into IB back in the year 1991 by way of deputation. A provision was made in the Recruitment Rules of IB for recruitment either by direct recruitment or by transfer on deputation. The petitioner was permitted to continue in IB till 1999, even after enforcement of the Rules and was repatriated thereafter. The Honble Supreme Court refused to issue any writ of mandamus to the State Government to permanently absorb the petitioner, though it advised consideration of his application.
11. Hence, in view of the above, it is unequivocally held that in response to the query under this issue the right of a deputationist is limited one. A deputationist is a guest in the borrowing department and as soon as his term is over, he is expected to leave and cannot claim permanent absorption as a right unless it is protected by rules, regulations or law in vogue. Thus, a deputationist would have no right and his claim would be governed mainly by determination of the second issue.
12. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, admittedly, the applicant came on deputation to the borrowing department under provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 2004 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which carry full nomenclature of Intelligence Bureau (Non-Gazetted Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2004. The relevant portion relating to the post of ACIO-II is as under:-
Name of the post Number of post Classifi-cation Scale of pay Whether selection post or non-selection post Age-limit for direct recruits Whether benefit of added years of service is admissible under rule 30 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II (Wireless Telegraphy) 396* (2004) Subject to variation dependent on workload General Central Service Group-C (Non- Gazetted/ Non-Ministerial) Rs.5500-175-9000 Selection Between 18 and 27 years (Relaxable for departmental candidates upto 40 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Govt.) No. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotes.
Period of probation, if any.
Method of recruitment: whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ absorption and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various mthods.
In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/ absorption, grades from which promotion/ deputation/ absorption to be made.
If a depart-mental promotion committee exists, what is its composition Circumstances in which Union Public Service Commission is to be consul-ted in making recruitment 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bachelors degree in Science with Physics of Mathematics or Computer Science as one of the subjects or Diploma in Radio Engineering awarded at the end of three years course from any recognized poly-technic or M.Sc (Wireless) or Degree in Tele-communication Engineering No. Two years
(i) 50% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.
(ii) 10% by deputation/ absorption.
(iii) 40% by direct recruitment Promotion Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-I (Wireless Telegraphy) with ten years regular service in the grade who have already successfully completed one of the Departmental training course.
Ten percent of the promotion quota shall be filled up under Fast Track Promotion Scheme through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-I (Wireless Telegraphy) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- with 6 years regular service in the grade and possessing a Bachelors Degree or Diploma from a recognized university or equivalent as per the rules of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Notified by the Govt. from time to time.
Deputation:
Officers of the Central/ State Governments holding analogous posts in the parent cadre/ department.
Note: (1) Period of deputation ordinarily not exceeding three years.
(2)The maximum age limit for appointment by deputation (including short-term contract) and absorption shall not be exceeding 56 years as on the closing date of receipt of applications by the Union Public Service Commission or by the Ministry/Department/Office as the case may be.
Group C Departmental Promotion Committee:
(For Promotion)
1. Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, Chairman
2. Two Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau Members.
(For Confirmation) Three officers of the rank of Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau Members, Senior most amongst them shall be the Chairman.
Admittedly, 10% of the vacancies were to be filled up by deputation/absorption. The applicant submits that though a deputationist does not have claim for permanent absorption but definitely he has a claim to be considered for absorption, and, therefore, under the Recruitment Rules, 2004, he had to be considered for the same. However, subsequently, Recruitment Rules, 2004 came to be replaced by the new Recruitment Rules, 2011 vide which 10% quota meant for appointment by deputation/absorption was done away with. However, for the sake of clarity, the new Recruitment Rules, namely, Intelligence Bureau (Non-Gazetted Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2011 relating to the post of ACIO-II are extracted:-
Name of the post Number of post Classifi-cation Pay Bank and Grade Pay or pay scale Whether selection post or non-selection post Age-limit for direct recruits Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II (Wireless Telegraphy) 396* (2011) Subject to variation dependent on workload General Central Service Group-C (Non- Gazetted/ Non-Ministerial) Pay Band-2, Rs.9300-34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200.
Selection Between 18 and 27 years (Relaxable for departmental candidates upto 40 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Govt.)
(a) (i) Bachelors degree in Science with Physics of Mathematics; or Diploma in Radio Engineering awarded at the end of three years course from any recognized polytechnic or M.Sc (Wireless) or Degree in Tele-communication Engineering
(ii) Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications or at least one year Diploma in Computer Application from any recognized Polytechnic or Institute after graduation, or
(b) Bachelor of Computer Applications or Bachelors Degree in Computer Science or Information Technology or BE or B.Tech in Software Engineering or Information Technology from a recognized university.
Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotes.
Period of probation, if any.
Method of recruitment: whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ absorption and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.
In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/ absorption, grades from which promotion/ deputation/ absorption to be made.
If a depart-mental promotion committee exists, what is its composition.
Circumstances in which Union Public Service Commission is to be consul-ted in making recruitment 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Not applicable No. Two years
(i) 60% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment.
(ii) 40% by direct recruitment Promotion Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-I (Wireless Telegraphy) in Pay Band-1, Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade pay of Rs.2800 with six years regular service in the grade who have already successfully completed one of the Departmental training course.
Note-1: Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service.
Note 2: Ten percent of the promotion quota shall be filled up under Fast Track Promotion Scheme through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the Junior Intelligence Officer Grade-I (Wireless Telegraphy) in Pay Band-1, Rs.5200=-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs.2800 with four years regular service in the grade and possessing a Bachelors Degree or Diploma from a recognized university or equivalent as per the rules of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Notified by the Govt. from time to time.
Note-3: For the purpose of computing minimum qualifying service for promotion, the service rendered on a regular basis by an officer prior to the 1st January, 2006 or the date from which the revised pay structure based on the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations has been extended, shall be deemed to be service rendered in the corresponding grade pay or pay scale extended based on the recommendations of the Commission.
Group C Departmental Promotion Committee:
(For considering Promotion) consisting of:
1. Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, Chairman
2. Two Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau Members.
Group-C Departmental Promotion Committee (for considering confirmation) consisting of:
Three officers of the rank of Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau Members, Senior most amongst them shall be the Chairman.
Hence, the provision for appointment by deputation/absorption no longer exists in the new Recruitment Rules, 2011. However, the argument of the applicant is that once he had come on deputation under the old Recruitment Rules, 2004, he had necessarily to be considered for absorption under the same set of recruitment rules which will continue to govern his service conditions. In this regard, perusal of Recruitment Rules, 2011 clearly reveals that these rules shall come into force on the date of their issue substituting the old Recruitment Rules, 2004. Since the new Recruitment Rules came to be issued on 03.06.2011, there is absolutely no ambiguity on this point. The argument of the applicant that he shall continue to be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2004 is far-fetched and unworthy of credence for the simple reason that after having issued the new Recruitment Rules, 2011, the old Recruitment Rules, 2004 ceased to exist and no longer enforceable. This also stands to reason as there cannot be two Recruitment Rules on the same subject at the same time. This position has been reiterated in the case of Ajay Kumar Bhuyan versus State of Orissa and Others [2003(1)SCC 707]. Here, the issue was that as to when 1975 Rules came into force. The Honble Supreme Court held that the Rules came into force in 1979 as provided in the Rules themselves, which had the inevitable consequences of replacing once and for all the earlier Rules contained in the Police Manual. The Honble Supreme Court in this respect did not find any challenge to the orders of the Tribunal.
13. The above leaves the issue involved in the instant case under no doubt that as soon as the Recruitment Rules 2011 came into force w.e.f. 03.06.2011, the old Recruitment Rules, 2004 ceased to be in operation. This position also stands reiterated in the case of Hari Chand Gupta (D) Through L.R. Kasturi Devi versus State of U.P. [1998 (6) SCC 328, Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2002 (9) SCC 20], and State of U.P. and Others versus Jagjeet Singh & Others [2003 (8) SCC 270].
14. Now, we take up the third issue. It has been argued by the respondents that it is indeed a fact that in May, 2013 the applicant had requested for extension of deputation tenure for the 4th year and as per his request and under the directions of MHA, IB took up his case with SSB Authorities for providing NOC for considering his extension for the 4th year. This NOC was finally granted vide their letter dated November, 2013. Thereafter, the file was submitted to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for obtaining its approval for extension of the deputation period of the applicant beyond three years as per the instructions contained in DOP&T OM dated 17.06.2010. It is also submitted by the respondents that after due consideration, authorities in MHA rejected the case of the applicant on the ground that as per extant Recruitment Rules, 2011, there is no provision of deputation and, therefore, directed repatriation of the applicant. Since the sanctioned term of deputation expired on 03.09.2013, the applicant had been continuing in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned tenure of deputation. The learned counsel for the respondents, in this regard, argued that continuance of the applicant in the borrowing department beyond the sanctioned tenure of deputation was strictly prohibited vide DOP&T OM dated 01.03.2011 with adverse implication for the deputationist with reference to increment, pension etc. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, added that as the request of the applicant for extension of his deputation tenure beyond three years has not been acceded to by the competent authority, his repatriation vide order 28.03.2014 issued by the respondent with a copy to the applicant, was justified. However, the applicant did not sign the attendance register after returning from leave on 31.03.2014, refused to accept copy of the repatriation order, and had left the office without any information. Thus, it is the argument of the respondents that it was the applicant who had acted irresponsibly and there was no arbitrary action involved on part of the respondents. On the other hand, we have already taken note of the argument of the applicant that mandatory prior notice of three months was must and the same has been disregarded which would tantamount to violation of rules of natural justice in the case of the applicant.
15. Taking note of the facts as enumerated, the sequence of events speaks for themselves. It is an admitted fact that the applicant had requested for extension of his deputation tenure beyond three years. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, approval of the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for extension beyond three years was necessary as per OM dated 17.06.2010. Relevant portion of the OM dated 17.06.2010 is extracted hereunder:-
8.2 In case where the period of deputation/foreign service prescribed in the recruitment rules of the ex-cadre post is 3 years or less, the Administrative Ministry/borrowing organization may grant extension upto the 4th year after obtaining order of their Secretary (in the Central Government)/Chief Secretary (in the State Government)/ equivalent officer (in respect of other cases) and for the fifth year with the approval of the Ministry of the borrowing Ministry/Department and in respect of other organizations with the approval of the Ministry of the borrowing Ministry/Department with which they are administratively concerned.
16. We have already taken note of the fact that the applicants request for extension of deputation tenure beyond three years had been refused at the level of the Secretary, MHA. It is also an admitted fact that for the period beyond three years of deputation spent by the applicant with the borrowing department, payments have already been made to him. The applicant has not been able to show any provision where if the deputationist continues beyond three years even by a couple of months or days, it is to be deemed that the deputation stands extended. Once the Secretary of the Department has declined to grant extension of deputation for the 4th year, the matter comes to an end. Hence, the repatriation order of the applicant had rightly been issued by the respondents as his stay beyond the sanctioned term of deputation was without authorization and could be called into question at any time. We are also sanguine that no show cause notice was required to be served in the instant case as it was not a premature repatriation as was being sought to be conveyed by the applicant. Once the permission for extension of deputation period beyond the sanctioned term has been declined, continuance of the applicant on deputation is not justified being unauthorized.
17. We have already discussed all the issues individually. We start with the general principle that a deputationist would have no right to continue on deputation or for absorption unless so provided by rules and statutes, subject to suitability. Where there is no provision in the recruitment rules for absorption, question does not arise for acceding to the request of the deputation for his permanent absorption. The applicant had been brought on deputation under Recruitment Rules, 2004, which ceased to exist after promulgation of Recruitment Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 03.06.2011. As already noted above, the respondents, after having obtaining the NOC from SSB that being the parent department of the applicant, submitted the file before the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry for extension of deputation tenure for the 4th year, but the same was declined. Hence, the applicants repatriation does not attract the clause of prior notice of three months not being a case of premature repatriation.
18. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in these three Original Applications and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in the files of the respective OAs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/