Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Shri Shyam Arya, learned counsel, argued that it is wrong to say that the respondents curtailed the tenure of deputation of the appellant, whereas the fact is that the tenure of deputation of appellant was only for one year and after completion of that period, the term of deputation was not extended. Although the borrowing department may be bound by the provisions contained in the Department of Personnel & Training OM No.6/8/2009-Estt (Pay-II) dated 17.06.2010, they are not binding upon the respondent Government of Madhya Pradesh. Once the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of sanction of tenure of deputation, he cannot claim as a matter of right extension of that term. The principle of estoppel is applicable in the matter against the appellant. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that deputation of the appellants was of one year and it was never challenged and objected by the appellant. Issuance of 'no objection' and permission to extend the term of deputation are two distinct things. The respondent granted permission to send the appellant on deputation only for a period of one year. It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that appointment should be governed by the terms and conditions of the order of appointment and also by order of grant of tenure of deputation. Assertion of appellant in appeal that in commutation order dated 27.02.2014 it was erroneously mentioned that initial appointment of appellant was for one year, extendable on year to year basis, is absolutely wrong. When he was aware about erroneous order, why did he not challenge the same. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. V. Ramkrishnan, supra, in para 32 of the report, are not applicable to the facts of present case. When the respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh permitted the term of deputation only for one year and the NCTE also appointed the appellant initially for one year, there was no need of giving him any opportunity of hearing. The allegation of appellant regarding violation of principle of natural justice is emphatically denied. Keeping in view the necessity of services of the appellant in the University, the respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh did not think it appropriate to extend the term of deputation. The term of deputation cannot be extended on the sweet will of appellant or borrowing department.

17. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent - NCTE, argued that deputation of appellant was initially for a period of one year, which was extendable up to three years on year to year basis and his tenure came to end on 04.03.2015. He was posted at NRC, NCTE, Jaipur, with immediate effect. His deputation period was for one year and he wrote a letter dated 11.02.2015 to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi, regarding his consent to continue in NCTE on deputation, in which he specifically admitted that his initial period of deputation was for one year, which was completed on 04.03.2015, and he requested to extend term of his deputation for remaining two years. The NCTE, being the borrowing department, had no authority to extend the period of his deputation without prior consent of the parent department. Learned Single Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 01.05.2015 directed the NCTE to immediately relieve the appellant. The appellant therefore, vide order dated 29.04.2015, has already been relieved from the post of Regional Director and in his place one Dr. S.K. Chauhan has assumed the charge of the post. It is argued that in fact, the appellant was already relieved by the office of NCTE and the appellant pleaded incorrect facts. The NCTE no longer requires the services of appellant. The appellant does not have any legally enforceable right to complete the extendable period of his deputation and he could always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position. The appellant has no vested right to continue on deputation. The order repatriating the appellant to his parent department, not being punitive/stigmatic and being simplicitor order of repatriation, does not infringe any right of or cause any prejudice to the appellant.

12. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment(recruitment) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be discriminated nor it is open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person, who applies for appointment on deputation has indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled except on the ground of non- suitability or unsatisfactory work.

13. The present case is not a case of transfer on deputation. It is a case of appointment on deputation for which advertisement was issued and after due selection, the offer of appointment was issued in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent to argue that the appellant has no right to claim deputation and the respondent cannot refuse to accept the joining of most eligible selected candidate except for ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.