Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is further stated that, the Government of India has all the rights and power to nominate an officer for deputation depending on number of factors which are to be considered holistically. The Government of India has no obligations towards its officers to send them on deputation. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim pecuniary compensation for any deputation for which he is not sent as the selection by the Government to any officer for deputation deployment with foreign agencies depending on number of factors which are to be considered and government will select the candidates holistically. The denial of opportunity of selection will not suffice to claim any right of pecuniary compensation.

16. The written arguments also states that, the decision of government to nominate the officer for deputation/deployment with foreign agencies depends on number of factors, which are to be considered holistically in a given point of time. The government has no obligation towards officers to send them on O S No.7746/2006 deputation. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim any pecuniary compensation for any deputation, which he is not sent as the selection by the government to any officer for deputation / deployment with foreign agencies depending on number of factors, which are to be considered and government will select the candidates holistically and denial of opportunity of selection will not suffice to claim any right to pecuniary jurisdiction, for which he was not send to the said service. The defendant also stated about the jurisdiction of this court in the matter itself stating that, there is no merits in the suit. Even though the Government of Karnataka has declined to take action against the plaintiff, the fact remains that, he interfered with the investigation by C.B.I. and thereby exhibited the conduct of unbecoming of a Government Servant. Under these circumstances, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

47. Apart from that, the defendant has shown to this court why at the relevant point of time due to input by the C.B.I. Department the defendant has withdrawn the deputation or cancelled the nomination. The defendant has also produced 8 documents before this court. The official of defendant got herself examined as DW-1 and she has reiterated the written-statement averments. The defence of the defendant that, it is prerogative of the government and it can select its officials for deputation based on so many other factors etc., are all valid grounds. It has been specifically stated by the defendant that, deputation/deployment with foreign agency depends on number of factors, which are to be considered holistically in a given point of time. It has also contended that, there was a limited slots and O S No.7746/2006 the same has compelled the government for internal restrictions etc., These defence are valid defence in the absence of showing that, the cancellation of deputation has been illegally done.