Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Shri Shyam Arya, learned counsel for the respondent Government of Madhya Pradesh, argued that the appellant was permitted to join on deputation on the post of Deputy Secretary/Regional Director, NCTE, New Delhi, only for one year, which is evident from order dated 04.03.2014. Neither the borrowing department nor appellant can compel the lending department to extend the period of deputation for further one year. Respondent landing department is competent to recall the appellant and it vide order dated 25.03.2015 rightly repatriated and posted him as Deputy Registrar, Barkatullah University, Bhopal. Even the NCTE also appointed the appellant on deputation for one year, extendable on year to year basis up to three yeas. On expiry of the period of deputation of one year, when the lending department, in its discretion, decided not to concur for extension of deputation, the appellant was required to join the duty to his parent department. The appellant himself in para 4 of the appeal has stated that in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that period of deputation cannot exceed three years. The NCTE appointed him only for one year, extendable by three years on year to year basis. The appointment of appellant on deputation was only for one year and the lending department also permitted him to go on deputation only for one year and now he cannot claim his deputation to continue for three years. Respondent may or may not at their sweet will extend the term of deputation. The order dated 04.03.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of MP, copy of which was sent to the Registrar, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, permitted the appellant to join on deputation only for a period of one year.

21. Argument made on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh that it could refuse to extend the deputation at its sweet will cannot be therefore countenanced. The respondent NCTE when it approved the appointment of the appellant on deputation, it at the outset immediately conveyed to the Registrar, Jiwaji University, by its letter dated 27.02.2014, both the aforesaid facts that he has been selected for appointment as Deputy Secretary/Regional Director in the respondent NCTE on deputation basis initially for one year, extendable up to three years, on year to year basis and also the terms and conditions thereof would be governed by the Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010. The letter dated 27.02.2014, the vacancy circular dated 15.11.2012, and aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2010 will have to be therefore read conjointly to determine the period of deputation, understood by all the consenting parties as minimum, namely, the lending department, borrowing department and appointee himself. Notwithstanding therefore the initial permission granted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for relieving the appellant to join the services of respondent NCTE on deputation basis for a period of one year vide letter dated 04.03.2014, this one year should be read within three years on year to year basis, which was the understanding between all the three parties for appointment of the appellant on deputation with respondent NCTE as Deputy Secretary/Regional Director. Although, we are not inclined to countenance the submission that extension of deputation of appellant for fourth year, even beyond three years, would not require any consent from the lending department i.e. Higher Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh but the appellant has certainly made out a case why he should have been allowed to complete three years' tenure of deputation. Had it not been for assured term of three years, neither the appellant would have applied for appointment on deputation for only one year nor the respondent NCTE would have entertained his application for transfer on deputation. We by this do not mean to suggest that the requirement of approval on year to year basis should be completely done away with but in view of solemn understanding given by the lending department while initially consenting to lend the services of the appellant for a tenure appointment on deputation for three years, ordinarily the request of the borrowing department on the basis of willingnesses of the employee concerned to consent for extension of deputation for one more year should not be declined except for a very compelling valid reason on objective considerations. If the lending department were to refuse extension beyond one year, it has to convey such compelling and valid reason.

22. Significantly, even before the Government recalled the services, the respondent NCTE, with reference to their earlier letter dated 27.02.2014, sent a letter dated 24.02.2015 to the Higher Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, that the appellant was appointed on deputation basis as Deputy Secretary/Regional Director and was presently working as Regional Director, NCTE, NRC, Jaipur, for a period of one year, extendable up to three years and that he is going to complete his one year deputation on 04.03.2015, so in continuation of the above term and period of his recruitment/appointment as well as keeping in view the inevitable services of the appellant and also his willingness to continue his service for another one year, the competent authority has decided to extend the term of his appointment/deputation for another one year from 05.03.2015. The request was made to convey the approval of the competent authority of the lending department for extension of deputation period of one year. When the Government recalled the services of the appellant and posted him as Deputy Registrar in Barkatullah University, Bhopal, the Member Secretary, NCTE, again sent a DO letter dated 09.04.2015, to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, stating that the appellant was appointed with effect from 06.03.2014 on deputation basis for one year extendable by three years. He has completed tenure of one year on 05.03.2015. Accordingly a request was sent vide letter dated 24.02.2015 for extension of deputation beyond 05.04.2015. However, the Department of Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 25.03.2015, has ordered his internal posting without sending formal reply to their request. It was further reiterated that the appellant was selected for a period of three years, of course, extendable on year to year basis, and that there is acute shortage of officers in the NCTE and it may be difficult for them to spare his services at this juncture. Further that the NCTE had brought new regulations vide its notification dated 28.11.2014, pursuant to which it has invited applications from States and Union Territories for teacher education programmes, so time schedule has been prescribed in pursuance of orders of the Supreme Court. Dr. Mansoori being the Regional Director of the Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur, is responsible for examining, processing the applications in respect of eight states under its jurisdiction, which is to be completed within the fixed time frame. Request was therefore made to allow them to retain his services for another one year.

25. In these facts, when request of the Member Secretary, NCTE, reached lending department for extension of period of deputation of appellant, the Section Officer in Note 1007/15 dated 17.04.2015 dealt with letter dated 09.04.2015 as also the earlier letter dated 24.02.2015 inviting attention towards the request contained therein for extension of deputation for one more year and also to the fact that appellant has been posted in Barkatullah Vishwavidhyalaya, Bhopal, vide order dated 25.03.2015 and no information has yet been received as to whether he has joined. This typed out note did not initially have any proposal for placing the appellant under suspension but in an already typed out Note, two lines were indeed added by hand in different ink that with reference to discussion of Deputy Secretary-I, the draft of suspension order of officer was proposed. The file was then marked to the Under Secretary-III and thereafter to Deputy Secretary-I, who though initially marked it to the Minister but then on the original note-sheet this marking has been erased by use of white fluid and thereafter it has been marked to Principal Secretary, who then noted that despite instructions at the branch level, draft of suspension order has not been produced, which was now being proposed. It was thereafter that the matter was marked to the Principal Secretary of the Department, who then noted that the order of suspension be issued and matter be placed for ex-post-facto approval of the Minister concerned and then marked the matter to the Deputy Secretary-I. Quite interestingly, all these notes were prepared and approved on 17.04.2015 i.e. on one single day and thereafter the Deputy Secretary-I Shri Lalit Daiya issued the suspension order of the appellant on the same day. The approval of the Minister concerned though has been obtained subsequently. All this was done in a post haste manner, without sending a formal reply to the respondent NCTE refusing to grant extension of the period of deputation, despite their repeated requests, which lend credence to the argument of the appellant that action of the respondent State, besides being arbitrary and capricious, suffers from the vice of malice, if not in fact, at-least in law.