Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hon'bleMr.V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicant has filed the present OA praying for the following relief:

(a) Quash and set aside the Order dated 31.7.2014 repatriating the applicant to CISF (Respondent No.2) having already been selected on absorption in NTRO.

(b) Direct the respondent Respondent No.1 NTRO to take the applicant back on absorption and treat him at par with the junior deputationist Sh. Vinod Singh Rawat, with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the decision of the NTRO to absorb respondent no.3 by ignoring the claim of the applicant who is senior to respondent no. 3, was in violation of the right of the applicant for similar treatment in the matter of public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of Constitution of India. The action of the NTRO also infringed Article 14 of the Constitution as the same was arbitrary. According to learned counsel, it was settled law that in the matter of absorption the respondents should have followed the seniority of the candidates counting from the date they came on deputation. The applicant had joined as SAA on 01.08.2008 while the respondent no.3 had joined on 04.08.2008. Everything being equal, the applicant had the first right to be considered and being selected for absorption. In this context, the learned counsel referred to the instructions of the Government contained in Swamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration (Annexure A-8) relating to absorption of an officer that stipulate "the Administrative Ministry should certify that there is no other deputationist in position appointed earlier to the officer now proposed for absorption, and in case there is any such person, he is not willing to be considered for appointment on absorption basis." This instruction reflected the intention of giving first opportunity for absorption to a deputationist who had longer service than any other deputationist in the organisation in that grade. Further the suitability of the candidates was assessed on the basis of service record, seniority etc. In service records, the applicant could not have been in any way inferior to respondent no.3. His ACR gradings during the period 2009 to 2014 ranged from 'Very Good' to 'Outstanding'. Though it was not a case of promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit, it was relevant to note that the bench mark for promotion to the post of Administrative Assistant was only 'Good'. The learned counsel's most vehement opposition was to the consideration of seniority in the parent organisation while deciding the matter of absorption in NTRO. The past seniority in the parent organisation had no relevance when two deputationists were being considered. It was the length of period spent on deputation that would determine the inter se seniority of the candidates under consideration. The respondents committed an illegality in taking into account the parent organisation's seniority in treating the respondent no.3 as senior to respondent no.1.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the OA itself had now become infructuous because the applicant was no more serving in the NTRO. After completing his initial tenure the deputation of the applicant was extended for the 6th year w.e.f. 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014. He had expressed his consent vide application dated 09.01.2014 for further extension of deputation for the 7th year. However, the NOC conveyed by CISF was not in accordance with the existing policy of the MHA and as such, the applicant had to be repatriated on 31.07.2014. According to the learned counsel, the respondent NTRO had given fair opportunity to both the candidates, i.e., applicant and respondent no.3, of being considered forthe lone post, to be filled up on absorption basis. The Selection Committee after considering all the relevant parameters found the respondent no.3 as more suitable for the post. He contested the submission of the applicant that the parent department's seniority was of no consequence while considering the candidates on deputation for absorption. The applicant and respondent no.3 both were ASI/CLK in their parent organisation when they joined as SAA on deputation but respondent no.3 was senior to the applicant. Both of them were promoted to the grade of SI/CLK in CISF and again the respondent no.3 was promoted earlier than the applicant. It is a settled law that the period served by a deputationist in the analogous posts in the parent organisation will also be counted when it comes to fixing inter se seniority of two similarly situated persons. The final selection by the Selection Committee was done taking into account all the relevant factors to assess the suitability of the candidates. He further pointed out that the respondent no.3 was absorbed in the NTRO w.e.f. 03.05.2013 and the applicant did not represent against that order. He applied for extension of deputation w.e.f. 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014 and again for another one year period of beyond 31.07.2014. It was only when his deputation for the 7th year was not approved that he decided to approach this Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supplementing the submissions of respondent no.1 stated that respondent no.3 was always senior to applicant and that factor could not have been ignored by the Selection Committee of respondent no.1. In the ranks of ASI/Clk and SI/SLK, the respondent no.3 was senior to the applicant. Both had applied for the post of SAA in NTRO and were selected together. Respondent no.2 issued the relieving order of both the officers on the same date but respondent no.3 being posted at Kishtwar (J&K) could join the NTRO only on 04.08.2008 while the applicant being posted at Delhi could join NTRO the very next day, i.e. 01.08.2008. He also referred to a document showing that the period from 01.08.2008 to 03.08.2008 was treated as joining time which according to learned counsel would imply that the respondent no.3 was taken on the rolls of NTRO w.e.f. 01.08.2008. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 also raised the issue of jurisdiction stating that the CISF is an armed force of the Union and according to Section 2 (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the Armed Forces Union have been excluded from the purview of this Tribunal.