Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The NHAI vide letter dated 22.05.2020 informed the BRO authorities with an attached list of applicants informing the date of selection and also requesting for permitting the officer to attend the interview as per the schedule. It appears that in the said selection, the petitioner along with other candidates had appeared and the petitioner was selected which was intimated vide letter dated 09.06.2020 to the authorities of the BRO with a request that NOC be issued in so far as the deputation of the petitioner was concerned. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner with a request to forward his willingness for such deputation. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.06.2020 to the DGBR requesting for such NOC. A similar letter was also addressed by the petitioner to the Addl. DGBR (East). It appears that vide a forwarding letter dated 09.06.2020, a copy of an order dated 19.02.2020 was communicated to the petitioner stating that the petitioner was due for "HAA" (High Altitude Area) turn over and acute deficiency of officers Page No.# 6/15 eligible for HAA posting and therefore, the case of the petitioner was not recommended. It appears that at no earlier point of time, the letter dated 19.02.2020 was communicated to the petitioner and rather, the petitioner was given the impression that due permission was accorded for his participation in the selection process initiated vide the advertisement dated 21.01.2020.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner had also informed his willingness to join the NHAI on deputation vide letter dated 12.06.2020 and further, a communication dated 15.06.2020 was issued by the Joint Director (Admin & Personnel) to the DGBR for consideration of the case of the petitioner which was duly recommended by the ADGBR (East).

7. Certain more facts have been brought on records by the petitioner in this rejoinder affidavit filed on 28.01.2021. It appears that pursuant to the same advertisement dated 21.01.2020, certain other officers of the BRO had applied and vide a communication dated 23.07.2020, NOC was granted to 15 such officers out of which only 5 were amongst the selected candidates. The matter being brought into the notice, the BRO issued letter dated 29.07.2020 recommending only the 5 nos. of selected officers.

10. I have heard Shri D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned A.S.G.I. representing the BRO and Shri C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI.

11. Shri Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the BRO in denying the NOC to the petitioner after allowing him to participate in the selection process is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and whimsical. It is submitted that at no earlier point of time till the selection was finalized and the petitioner was adjudged as one of the selected candidates, no issues were raised by the Parent Department. On the contrary, from the very inception of the selection process, starting from forwarding the hardcopy (PDF) of the ONLINE application along with all necessary documents, the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that due permission was given by the BRO for participating in the said selection initiated vide advertisement dated 21.01.2020. Drawing the attention of this Court to Clause 11(xi) of the advertisement, it is submitted that the letter dated 07.02.2020 left no scope to have any doubt regarding the concurrence of the Department in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the requirement of NOC is a formality to enable the incumbent to join the NHAI and the same was not a part of the advertisement dated 21.01.2020 and has been mentioned only in the selection letter dated 09.06.2020. The learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned rejection is of 19.02.2020 i.e. much prior Page No.# 8/15 to the application dated 10.06.2020 of the petitioner seeking such NOC pursuant to the selection letter dated 09.06.2020 and therefore, it is apparent that there is absolutely no application of mind to the relevant factors.

Page No.# 15/15 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 issued by the BRO and the entire action of rejection of the permission for deputation is set aside and quashed and the BRO authorities are directed to accord necessary permission / issue and NOC to the petitioner so as to enable him to appear in the interview as the final stage for his deputation in the NHAI immediately and not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that after issuance of the said NOC, the NHAI would take necessary steps for posting the petitioner on deputation in the post of General Manager (Technical) for which he was duly selected as per the offer of appointment dated 09.06.2020.