Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanjay P R vs Managing Director on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB
WA No. 854 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANJAY P. R.
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE A. JANARDHANAN NAIR,
EMPLOYEE NO:20318,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(PP),
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED
(BRBNMPL),
NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 003,
RESIDING AT NO.94,
1ST FLOOR, 3RD 'A' MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A 12TH CROSS, GOKULAM 2ND STAGE,
Location: High MYSURU - 570 002.
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANT
(BY MR. KULKARNI P.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK,
NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED,
(WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA),
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE,
NO.3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB
WA No. 854 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
B.T.M. LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 029,
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
CORPORATE OFFICE,
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED,
NO. 3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
B.T.M. LAYOUT,
BENGALURU: 560 029,
3. GENERAL MANAGER
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK,
NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED,
NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR,
MYSURU: 570 003,
4. AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
(MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA)
PB NO. 1718, VIMANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU: 560 017,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN AND HR).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
MR. JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
11440/2025 (S-RES) AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB
WA No. 854 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.11440/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by stating in paragraphs No.9 and 10 as under:
"9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off on the following terms:
(i) The relief sought for in the writ petition is not granted. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that soon after they review the secondment scheme and if it provides for deputation to any other organization, the first case that they shall take up for deputing any of its employees, to any deputational posts under the Central Government or Public Sector undertakings, shall be the case of the petitioner. This shall be complied strictly without any exception.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. It is needless to mention that if the post of Joint Director (Materials management) in the respondent No.4 remains vacant as on the date of review of secondment scheme by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, then they shall take immediate steps to relieve the petitioner by maintaining his lien in his current position."
2. The brief facts to be noted are, pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.4 to fill various posts, the appellant desirous for applying for one post had made a request to the Controlling Authority to grant permission to apply to the post of Joint Director. A no-objection certificate ('NOC' for short) was issued to the appellant to apply for the post of Joint Director on deputation basis. Respondent No.4 informed the Controlling Authority about the selection of the appellant to the post of Joint Director (Materials Management) on deputation basis. The appellant accordingly made a representation and requested the Controlling Authority to relieve him from Mysuru on or before 31.03.2025 to take up the assignment on deputation and to hold the lien on -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR his post. The appellant was informed by his Controlling Authority that the Corporate Office, Bengaluru had refused to accept his request to relieve him to join the post at respondent No.4. It was this action, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.
3. The case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that, the relieving of the appellant was depending upon the exigencies of service/administrative convenience in the respondents' Company. Thus according to them, deputation is not a matter of right, but was at the sole discretion of the Controlling Authority and such discretion should be exercised depending upon the exigencies.
4. The learned Single Judge has, also in paragraphs No.7 and 8, stated as under:
"7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, benefit of the secondment scheme could not be claimed as a matter of right by the employees and approval of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR such cases would depend upon the availability of man power and would solely be at the discretion of the respondents. This fact was made known to the petitioner even while no objection certificate was given to the petitioner, while seeking employment on deputation as Joint Director (Materials Management) at the respondent No.4. It is also relevant to note that when the application of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the respondent No.4, it was specifically mentioned "his relieving under secondment scheme of the company for a period not exceeding three years, is subject to approval of competent authority and would depend primarily upon the exigencies of service/administration convenience." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a certificate in the form which is prescribed in Annexure IV to the secondment scheme, shows that the applicant if selected would be relieved immediately and that therefore, the secondment scheme will have to be examined in the context of certificate forwarded by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to respondent No.4, does not appeal to mind of this Court as relieving the petitioner was subject to approval of competent authority and the competent authority in terms of the order dated 07.04.2025 did not find it feasible to accede to the same, due to administrative exigencies.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. This Court cannot go into the question of what the administrative exigencies were, as it is the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who have to finally decide whether the services of the petitioner could be lent to the respondent No.4. The petitioner having availed employment in the respondent Nos.1 to 3, cannot question the decision of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to relieve him. Be that as it may, since it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have now taken a policy decision in terms of their letter dated 07.04.2025 to temporarily hold the secondment scheme with immediate effect and that the same would be reviewed in due course. The respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner, once they review the secondment scheme."
5. The only issue which falls for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled to be relieved to join the place of posting?
6. There is no dispute that the appellant had applied for the post in question under the secondment scheme of the respondent. The proforma at page No.41 of the paper book clearly stipulates that, the grant of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR NOC by the respondent-Company would not ipsofacto mean that the appellant shall be relieved on being selected in respondent No.4. The same is subject to exigency of service. In fact we find that, the communication dated 08.10.2024 of the respondent- Company clearly stated as under:
"xx xx xx xx Dear Sir, Permission to seek outside employment With reference to your letter dated October 03, 2024, we advise that the Company has no objection to your applying for the post of Joint Director on Deputation basis at Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bengaluru.
2. You may please note that the grant of permission should not be construed as permission to take up the job for which a separate application to hold lien under Secondment Scheme should be submitted at the appropriate time (i.e., after selection / receipt of appointment letter) and your -9- NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR release would depend primarily upon the exigencies of services / administrative convenience.
3. You should note to give due notice in case you intend resigning from the Company's service.
xx xx
xx xx"
7. The NOC having been granted with a caveat that the grant of NOC must not be construed as a permission to take up the job for which a separate application to hold lien under secondment scheme and the release would depend primarily upon the exigency of service and administrative convenience, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. In fact the learned Single Judge has also in paragraph No.10, secured the interest of the appellant to go on deputation in the eventuality the post remains vacant as on the date of review of secondment scheme by respondents No.1 to 3, when they shall take immediate steps to relieve the appellant by maintaining his lien in his current position.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26345-DB WA No. 854 of 2025 HC-KAR The appeal being without merit, is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78