Karnataka High Court
Sri Sangamesh Mundas S/O Basalingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.201919 OF 2021
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.201669 OF 2021,
WRIT PETITION NO.201916 OF 2021 &
WRIT PETITION NO.201920 OF 2021 (S-RES)
In W.P.No.201919/2021
Between:
Sri Sangamesh Mundas
S/o Basalingappa Mundas,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Executive Engineer,
Dam Division, KBJNL,
Dam Site, Almatti,
R/o Almatti Dam Site,
Taluk Nidagundi,
District Vijayapura - 586 201. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi Verma Kumar, Sr. Adv. and
Sri M.R.Rajagopal, Sr. Adv. for
Sri Sanganabasava B.Patil, Adv.)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Water Resources
2
(Services-A), Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Managing Director,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited,
PWD Office Annexe Building,
3rd Floor, K.R.Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Dam Zone,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited,
Almatti, Taluk Nidagundi,
District Vijayapura - 586 201.
4. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Milk Federation Ltd.,
KMF Complex, P.B.No.2915,
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru - 560 029. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.Subramanya, AAG a/w
Sri Mallikarjuna C.Basareddy, HCGP and
Sri Ramesh Gowda A., AGA for R1;
Sri.Sanjay M.Joshi, Advocate for R2 and R3
Sri M.Keshava Reddy, Advocate for R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the
impugned Government Order dated 07.10.2021 issued by
respondent No.1 in No.JASAME 287 SAS 2021 as per
Annexure-R in so far as the petitioner is concerned whose
name is figured at Sl.No.7 in the said Government order
and issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to
act in terms of the consent extended by the petitioner for
absorption or permanent appointment on transfer with
respondent No.1 Department as enshrined his name in the
list notified at Annexure-L dated 13.08.2020 in No.JASAME
06 SAS 2015 at item No.1 in the cadre of Executive
3
Engineers directing to include his name in the list annexed
to the Government Order dated 30.01.2021 in No.JASAME
06 SAS 2015 (Part-5) as per Annexure-M forthwith at the
suitable place as per the representation at Annexures-N
and N1 respectively dated 02.06.2021 and 07.06.2021.
In W.P.No.201669/2021
Between:
Sri Sangamesh Mundas
S/o Basalingappa Mundas,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ : Executive Engineer,
Dam Division, KBJNL,
Dam Site, Almatti,
Taluk Nidagundi,
District Vijayapura - 586 201. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi Verma Kumar, Sr. Adv. and
Sri M.R.Rajagopal, Sr. Adv. for
Sri H.N.Basavaraju, Adv.)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Water Resources
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Milk Federation Ltd.,
KMF Complex, P.B.No.2915,
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru - 560 029. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Subramanya R., AAG a/w
Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP and
Sri. Ramesh Gowda A., AGA for R1;
4
Vide order dated 17.09.2021
Notice to R2 is dispensed with)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider
the representations of the petitioner dated 02.06.2021 and
07.06.2021 as per Annexures-J and K for absorption in the
Department of Water Resources with all consequential
benefits as expeditiously as possible.
In W.P.No.201916/2021
Between:
Sri B.T.Patil S/o Tammanagouda Patil,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Executive Engineer,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd.,
Mulawad Lift Irrigation Scheme,
Division No.4, Devara Hipparagi,
R/o Plot No.723, Kaka Kharkanis Colony,
Managuli Road, Vijayapura - 586 109. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi Verma Kumar, Sr. Adv. and
Sri M.R.Rajagopal, Sr. Adv. for
Sri Sanganabasava B.Patil, Adv. &
Sri. H.N.Basavaraju, Adv.)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Water Resources
(Services-A), Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary to Government,
Department of Municipal Administration,
5
Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Managing Director,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited,
PWD Office Annexe Building,
3rd Floor, K.R.Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. The Chief Engineer, Dam Zone,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited,
Almatti, Taluk Nidagundi,
District Vijayapura - 586 201. ... Respondents
(By Sri. R.Subramanya, AAG a/w
Sri. Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, HCGP and
Sri. Ramesh Gowda A., AGA for R-1 & R-2;
Sri Sanjay M.Joshi, Adv. for R-3 & R-4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the
impugned Government Order dated 07.10.2021 issued by
respondent No.1 in No.JASAME 287 SAS 2021 as per
Annexure-G in so far as the petitioner is concerned whose
name is figured at Sl.No.6 in the said Government order
and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ by
declaring that the repatriation of the petitioner to the
parent department without the consent of the parent
department, is illegal and void; as such declare that the
petitioner is entitled for continuation on deputation with
respondent No.1 department.
In W.P.No.201920/2021
Between:
Mallikarjun S/o Chanbasappa Jaka,
Aged about 51 years,
6
Occ : Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Department,
Plot No.75, N.G.O's Colony,
Kalaburagi - 585 105. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Sr.Adv. &
Sri Ganesh S. Kalaburagi, Adv. for
Sri Sharanagouda V.Patil, Adv.)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Under Secretary,
Department of Water Resources (Services-A)
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Prl. Secretary,
Department of Commerce and Industries,
Vikasa Soudha
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. R.Subramanya, AAG a/w
Sri. Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, HCGP &
Sri. Ramesh Gowda A., AGA for R1 & R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
GO.No.JSE/287/SAS/2021, Bengaluru, dated 07.10.2021,
Annexure-P to the writ petition issued by the respondent
No.1 herein, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.
These petitions having been heard and reserved for
orders on 15.02.2022, coming on for "Pronouncement of
order", through video conferencing, this day, the Court
made the following:
7
ORDER
W.P.No.201919/2021 and W.P.No.201669/2021 are filed by the same person. The petitioner was an employee of respondent no.4 (Karnataka Milk Federation Limited) which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is a Government of Karnataka undertaking. The services of the petitioner was taken on deputation by the Water Resources Department.
2. Petitioner in W.P.No.201916/2021 was employed with Directorate of Municipal Administration which is controlled by the Urban Development Department. His services was also availed by Water Resources Department on deputation.
3. Petitioner in W.P.No.201920/2021 was an employee of Hatti Gold Mines and his services has also been taken on deputation by Water Resources Department (hereinafter referred as 'the Department' for short). 8
4. The petitioners in all the above writ petitions are all Engineers in various branches of Engineering.
5. The Department has also borrowed the services of various officers from various Government Departments and public sector undertakings and decided to permanently absorb certain employees who had come on deputation from Public Works Department and other departments and asked for consent of such employees who had come on deputation.
6. All the petitioners in the instant writ petitions exercised their option and requested to be absorbed in the Department. A gazette notification was issued by the State Government through the Department which is dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure-L in W.P.No.201919/2021) (hereinafter referred to as 'the first notification') wherein list of persons who had exercised their option to get absorbed with the Department and whose names were acceptable to the Department were published. It also 9 consists the names of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions.
7. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 of the first notification reads as under:
"d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÉÆÃd£É/ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀvð À ªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ E¯ÁSÉU½ À AzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ±Á±Àévª À ÁV ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉëĹPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå :
d¸ÀAE 06 ¸ÉÃJ¸ÀÄ 2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 25.11.2019 gÀ°è PÁAiÀÄðPÁj É ÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ The Karnataka Water DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤§AzsÀ£U Resources Services (Recruitment) Rules 2014gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2PÉÌ wzÀÄÝ¥r À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ µÀgw À U Û ÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ 25.11.2019 gÀAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj DzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸Àzj À PÁAiÀÄðPÁj DzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.11.2019gÀ «±ÉõÀ gÁdå ¥Àvz Àæ ° À è ¥ÀPæ Àn¹zÉ.
2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå : d¸ÀAE 06 ¸ÉÃJ¸ÀÄ 2015 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 25.11.2020 gÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ (¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå £ËPÀj ¨sw À ð) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1977 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 16(J)(ii) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ±Á±ÀévÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀĪ î À §UÉÎ C¢ü¸Æ À ZÀ£É ºÉÆgÀr¹ ¸Àzj À C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.11.2019gÀ «±ÉõÀ gÁdå ¥Àvz Àæ ° À è ¥ÀPæ Àn¹zÉ.10
3. C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥v À z Àæ ° À è ¥ÀPæ Àn¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 45 ¢£ÀU¼ À À M¼ÀUÁV d®¸ÀA¥À£Æ À ä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV/EvÀgÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgj À UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 18.12.2014gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ±Á±Àévª À ÁV ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉëĹPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸Àºª À ÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgj À UÉ CªÀgÀ EZÉU Ñ É C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV MAzÀÄ ¨Áj »A¥ÀqA É iÀÄ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¸¯ À ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ºÉƸÀzÁV ±Á±Àévª À ÁV ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉƼÀî®Ä EaѸÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À ÀÄ C©üªÀÄvÀ ªÀåPÀ¥ Û r À ¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ vÀªÀÄä C©üªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀz î É EgÀĪÀ µÀgv À ÀÄÛ «¢ü¹ C©üªÄÀ vÀ ¸À°è¸® À Ä MAzÀÄ ¨Áj CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¸¯ À ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¤UÀ¢v ü À £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥Àz æ Ás £À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ ¤UÀ¢v ü À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°¸ è ¨ À ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀPæ Àn¹ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À ÄÀ C£ÀĸÀj¸À¨ÃÉ PÁzÀ PÁAiÀÄð«zsÁ£ÀU¼ À À §UÉÎ C£ÀħAzsz À ° À è «ªÀj¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
xxx xxx
8. CzÀgA À vÉ, ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ E¯ÁSÉU½ À AzÀ ¤AiÉÆÃd£É ªÉÄÃ¯É d®¸ÀA¥À£Æ À ä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvð À ªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ««zsÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀZ æ ÀÄgÀ¥r À ¹gÀĪÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä C©üªÀÄvÀª£ À ÀÄß ¸À°¹ è gÀÄvÁÛg.É CzÀgA À vÉ C©üªÀÄvÀª£ À ÀÄß ¸À°¹ è gÀĪÀ ««zsÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À À «ªÀgª À £ À ÀÄß C£ÀħAzsz À ° À è ªÀÈAzÀªÁgÀÄ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PɼÀPA À qÀ µÀgw À U Û ÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ ¥ÀPæ n À ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ.
11
9. F C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£A É iÉÆA¢UÉ C£ÀħA¢ü¸¯ À ÁzÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è£À C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgg À ÀÄ, CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ºÀÄzÉÝ, d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ EvÀgÉ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀU½ À zÀÝ°è ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤UÀ¢ü ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀPæ n À ¹gÀĪÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è 15 (ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ) ¢£ÀU¼ À À M¼ÀUÁV DPÉëÃ¥Àu/É ¸À®ºÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¸À°¸ è v À ÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ¤UÀ¢v ü À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ §AzÀ CfðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸¯ À ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
8. Thereafter, another gazette notification was issued through the Department on 03.02.2021 (Annexure-M in W.P.No.201919/2021) (hereinafter referred to as 'the second notification') which contains the names of the persons whose services have been absorbed with the Department and the said notification does not contain the names of the petitioners herein. Thereafter, W.P.No.201669/2021 was filed wherein the petitioner therein prayed for a writ of mandamus to include his name in the list of employees whose services have been absorbed. Thereafter, a Government order was passed which is dated 07.10.2021 bearing No.Ja Sam E 287/SAS 2021 wherein the services of all the petitioners herein have been repatriated to their parent 12 department/organization. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.Nos.201919/2021, 201916/2021 and 201920/2021 have been filed.
9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the first notification (Annexure-L to the writ petition in W.P.No.201919/2021) gave the petitioners a vested right to be absorbed in the Department permanently and that leaving them out in the subsequent notification and repatriating them to their parent department/organization is illegal. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure-R to the writ petition in W.P.No.201919/2021) casts a stigma on them as it is observed that they are not capable of carrying out their jobs effectively. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°,è d®¸ÀA¥À£Æ À ä® E¯ÁSÉ/¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉU¼ À ° À è £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀÄ CUÀvÀå vÁAwæPÀ P˱À®å ¥Àq¢ É gÀĪÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgg À ÀÄUÀ¼® À z è ,É EvÀgÉ E¯ÁSÉ/¤UÀªÀÄ/ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ½AzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgg À ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ E¯ÁSÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀjuÁPÁj C£ÀĵÁ×£ª À £ À ÄÀ ß ¤jÃQ븮 À Ä 13 ¸ÁzsÀå«®,è CzÀg® À Æè d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ §ÈºÀvï PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ°è vÁAwæPÀ P˱À®åzÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ E®èzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉU¼ À À£ÄÀ ß ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªA É § CA±ÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹  ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ E¯ÁSÉ/¤UÀªÀÄ/ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ¼À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹzÀ°è F E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸Àܼ¤ À AiÀÄÄQÛ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀܼÁªÀPÁ±À ®¨sÀåªÁUÀz,É CªÀgÄÀ UÀ½AzÀ PÉ®¸À ¥ÀqA É iÀÄzÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð GzÀ⪪ À ÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSÉ/¤UÀªÀÄ/ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ½UÉ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªA É zÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ. CzÀgA À vÉÀ F PɼPÀ A À qÀ CzÉñÀ."
10. It is contended that the first notification records that the employees whose services have been availed on deputation from Public Works Department and other departments have been absorbed in the Department and the word 'other departments' also include Government of Karnataka undertakings.
11. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.201919/2021 on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE v. KULWANT 14 SINGH [(2003) 9 SCC 193]. In para 23 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
"23. The word "department" by its very nature, is not capable of a precise definition. Given its ordinary meaning in the context of governmental functions, it connotes a branch or division of government administration. For the sake of convenience the government work is divided subjectwise or functionwise, and each such division may be called a department. The word "department" is capable of a wider meaning as also a narrower meaning. The meaning of the word may differ having regard to the context in which it is used. Rule 2 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 provides-
"The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the ministries, departments, secretariats and offices specified in the First Schedule to these Rules (all of which are hereinafter referred to as 'departments')."
It is submitted that subsequent repatriation of the petitioners to their parent organization is illegal. 15
12. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.28000/2003 and other connected matters (D.D. 22.03.2012), wherein it has been held as under:
"7. On the day when the petitioners were all transferred on deputation to different Government departments, the respondent Government has not made a distinction between the Government Department on one hand and Public Sector Enterprises/Boards/Corporations on the other hand. Therefore, the petitioners legitimately expected when they went on deputation to different Government Departments that they will be absorbed into service. Long thereafter the impugned Government Order came to be issued denying the benefit of absorption to these employees who are working on deputation in Government Department. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectancy."
13. Based on the aforementioned submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pray that the impugned order dated 07.10.2021 (bearing No.Ja Sam E 287/SAS 2021) may be set aside insofar as it relates to 16 the petitioners and they be absorbed in the Department where they have been working on deputation.
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent no.1 has contended that the services of the petitioners have been admittedly availed on deputation by the Water Resources Department from various Corporations owned by the State and they are not employees of the Department. He further contended that a person on deputation does not have a right to be absorbed and it is the prerogative of the employer. It is also contended that the Government decided to absorb the employees whose services were borrowed from Public Works Department and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and not from Government Corporations. The first notification produced as Annexure-L in writ petition No.201919/2021 does not confer any right on the petitioners and that it has to be read along with the second notification produced as Annexure-M in W.P. No.201919/ 2021. It is contended that the first notification is only a 17 temporary list and as the petitioners also had requested them to be absorbed with the Department their name finds a place in it. However, after verification, as the Government did not intend to absorb their services in the Department their names were deleted and the second notification was issued finalizing the names of persons whom the Government decided to absorb in the Department. It is also contended that there is no error in not including the names of the petitioners in the same. That as the services of the petitioners was not required they have been repatriated to their Parent Corporations by an order dated 07.10.2021 which are challenged by them. It is further submitted that the said order of repatriation does not cast a stigma on them. Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed in the Department and are not trained in the work which is peculiar to the Department. On the contrary, the persons who have been repatriated come from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the Karnataka Power Transmission 18 Corporation Limited, Hatti Gold Mines, Karnataka Milk Federation Limited and the like.
15. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KUNAL NANDA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [(2000)5 SCC 362]. Para 6 of the judgment reads as under:
"6. On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad vs M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. [1999(8) SCC 381] is inappropriate since the consideration 19 therein was in the light of the statutory rules for absorption and the scope of those rules. The claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree needs mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the respondent department that the absorption of a deputationist being one against the direct quota, the possession of basic educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a must and essential and that there could no comparison of the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on promotion of a candidate who is already in service in that department is well merited and deserves to be sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the said claim."
16. Reliance is also placed on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAJA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [AIR 2019 SC 2876]. Para 13 of the judgment reads as under:
13. In Managing Director, UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam v. P.K. Bhatnagar and others [(2007) 14 SCC 498], it was held that the mere fact the employee has spent several years in service in the Department where he 20 has been sent on deputation, will not alter the position from that of a deputationist to a regular employee. Of course, it is well-settled that the employee who has been sent on deputation, has no right to claim absorption.
But in the case in hand, as we have discussed earlier, appointment was not on deputation; but by transfer of service much prior to coming into force of the Service Rules 2001."
17. It is a well settled proposition of law that an employee who has been sent on deputation has no right to claim absorption irrespective of the amount of years that he has worked on deputation unless he has a statutory right to be absorbed.
18. In the instant case, what needs to be considered is whether the first notification gave any right to the petitioners to be absorbed in the Water Resources Department.
19. Clause 8 of the said notification itself mentions that it is a temporary list. In the said list, the names of the petitioners have been found. Since the Government 21 decided not to absorb their services in the Water Resources Department as their services were availed on deputation from several State owned Corporations their names did not find a place in the second notification which contains the final list of employees whose services have been absorbed. The first notification does not confer any legal right on the petitioners. As it was decided that the services of the petitioners was not required, they have been repatriated by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.10.2021. Further, as the petitioners have not been appointed in the Water Resources Department and trained as per the Department's requirement, a mere observation that as they have not been appointed and trained accordingly and it may not be possible to expect them to execute the work with expertise does not constitute a stigma on the petitioners.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed. 22
In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE hkh.