Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, in our opinion, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court m aforesaid case supports the ease of contesting private respondent-deputationists instead of petitioners of these writ petitions, as the deputationists have already been absorbed in the services, of respondent No. 2, in accordance with the provisions of law after seeking permission from their parent departments/organizations as held by us herein before.

36. Now we would take next question as to whether the past service, rendered by contesting private respondents-deputationists of both the writ petitions referred hereinbefore in their parent organization in their respective grade can be counted for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the services of Authority or not? In this connection as indicated herein before the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners in nut shell is that contesting private respondents (deputationist) have joined the services of the Authority on their own accord and sweet-will by moving application for then appointment on deputation without imposing any condition thereon in respect of protection of their past services rendered by them in equivalent post in in their parent department before joining their post on deputation or while absorption of their services in the Authority and after having been absorbed in the services of the Authority, their past services rendered in their parent department and organization cannot be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority as in the order of absorption itself there is nothing to indicate that their past services have been protected by the Authority while absorbing them in the services of Authority. Besides this, further submission is that Regulation 24(2) of Service Regulation, 1981 which is relevant Regulation for determination of seniority also stipulates that where the seniority of an employee has not been specifically fixed by an order of appointing officer it will ordinarily be fixed on the basis of the date of his initial regular appointment in the category. While elaborating his arguments learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that since seniority of the employees of the Authority is governed by the said rules, therefore, the same has to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of said rules. And since prior to the date of permanent absorption of services of deputationists in the services of the Authority, they were not regular employees of the Authority and it is only on the date of their permanent absorption they could become regular employee from such date, therefore, their seniority could be fixed from the date of their absorption, which is virtually date of initial regular appointment of the deputationists in the services of the Authority, accordingly there can be no scope to count past services of deputationists in respective category or grade rendered by them in their parent department or organization prior to their absorption in the services of the Authority while determining their seniority in the services of the Authority, contrary to it. in the impugned seniority list dated 2.6.2006 the respondent No. 2 has wrongly determined the seniority of contesting private respondents- deputationists by taking into account their past services rendered in their parent department/organisation. In support of their contention learned Counsels for the petitioners have cited several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court to which we would deal a little later.

45. Now applying the aforesaid legal principle enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in facts and circumstances of the instant case, we find that Regulation 24 of the Service Regulations, 1981 deals with the determination of seniority of employees of Authority, it is not in dispute that Clause (2) of Regulation 24 is relevant Regulation for the purpose of question in controversy involved in the case. Clause (2) of Regulation 24 inter alia provides that where the seniority of an employee has not been specifically fixed by an order of appointing officer it will ordinarily be fixed on the basis of the date of his initial regular appointment in the category. Except to the aforesaid provision no other provision or office memorandum has been shown to us which specifically deals with the determination of seniority of deputationist on absorption in the services of the Authority, therefore, in our opinion, the rule/regulation is silent regarding the same. It is to be noted that the date of initial regular appointment in respective category of post is one thing and date of permanent absorption of deputationisi in aforesaid category of post is another thing. It is no doubt true that deputationist can not become regular employee of the Authority under Regulation 2 of Service Regulations 1981 unless absorbed in the service of the Authority as a regular employee and such persons shall continue to be governed by rules applicable to him in relation to his service under his parent department and organisation so far as applicability of the service regulations 1981 is concern and unless he becomes regular employee of the Authority, which can be possible only on his permanent absorption in service of the Authority, his seniority can not be determined under Regulation 24 of the Service Regulation 1981 for simple reason that the aforesaid regulations will not apply to him by that time, but it is also nowhere mentioned in the Service Regulation, 1981 or any other office order or circular issued by the Authority in this regard that the seniority of deputationists shall be counted from the date of their permanent absorption in the service of Authority in their respective category of posts. In case, it would have been intention of rule making authority that the seniority of deputationists shall be determined from the date of permanent absorption of deputationists in the services of Authority, in that eventuality different phraseology would have been used while drafting the aforesaid regulations or by adding any explanation thereunder different intention would have been shown or the provisions of said regulations would have indicated that the services rendered by deputationists in their parent department or organization on equivalent posts shall not be counted on absorption in respective categories of posts in the Authority or by any general office memo or individual order/letter they would have been communicated showing the intention of the Authority to do so while seeking their absorption in the services of the Authority but nothing of the aforestated sort has been shown to us. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn, between the expression 'on the basis of the date of his initial regular appointment in the category' and 'from the date his permanent absorption in the said category'. In our opinion, both the expressions connote different meaning and comprehend different situations altogether.

46. Besides, it is also not in dispute that 'deputation' is one of the source amongst the sources of recruitment under Regulation 16(1)(c) of the Service Regulation 1981. We have already held herein before that the absorption of deputationist could be validly made in the services of Authority and no fault can be found in the absorption of services of deputationist in the services of Authority. In such facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Madhvan's case (supra) that the general principle is that in absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the length of service from the date of appointment to a post should be taken into consideration for the purpose of either seniority on that post or eligibility for higher post is fully applicable. In case the seniority of deputationist of instant case may be fixed on the basis of date of his initial regular appointment in the category of post by treating the date of his permanent absorption in the services of Authority as date of his initial regular appointment in the category of posts held by him in the Authority by excluding the services rendered by him on respective category of posts in parent department, in absence of any rule to such effect or any individual orders intimating the deputationists before their absorption in the services of the Authority that their past services rendered on their respective posts in their parent department/organization shall not be counted towards computation of their length of service in determination of their respective seniority, it would be against all the rules of service jurisprudence rendering it, unreasonable and irrational particularly when the deputation is one of the source of recruitment in the service of the Authority and in such eventuality as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case that there is not much difference between the deputation and transfer. Indeed when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the service he is under the Rules appointed on transfer. In other words, deputation is regarded as the transfer from one Government department to another, therefore, in our opinion it is immaterial that deputationists have sought their appointment on deputation on their own accord or acts of volition or transferred in administrative exigencies of service. Virtually where the deputation is provided under the source of recruitment in particular service rules or regulations in contradistinction to other sort of deputation or transfer, it is always open for eligible and desirous person to apply for such appointment on deputation otherwise without any such application or consent for transfer on deputation how it would be possible to appoint any person on deputation m another department or organization or unit particularly when the absorption Rules specifically provider for moving an application for absorption on deputed post, showing his willingness for such absorption at the instance of deputationist, besides other formalities are required to observed by both the department before such absorption Therefore, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that deputationists-respondents,, themselves have sought their transfer to be appointed on deputation in services of Authority on their own acts of volition without placing any condition thereon in respect of protection of their past services rendered on regular basis in their parent department or organisation before joining the post on deputation or while absorption in the service of the Authority is misplaced and has to be rejected.

60. On other hand, there is another line of cases, where the deputation or transfer was not provided as one of the source of recruitment amongst the sources of recruitment either under the statutes or executive orders governing the recruitment on particular post but the appointment by deputation is otherwise permissible under law, with certain terms and conditions imposed therewith either under the statute or executive orders or office-memo's by whatever names called, to such cases, we will say second line of cases. The case of V.N. Bhat (supra), Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), K.P. Sudhakaran (supra), Surendra Singh Gaur (supra) and Arun Kumar's case (supra) are amongst the second line of cases. In respect of second line of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the deputationists on absorption m another organization shall not be entitled to reckon their past services rendered on respective category of post in their parent department or organization prior to joining their posts on deputation. In some of these cases their seniority was counted from the date of joining on deputation and deputationists were treated to be junior most in service on respective category of post and in some cases seniority was fixed from the date of permanent absorption of deputations on deputed post and the permanent absorption of the deputationists was treated to be fresh appointment on deputed post without counting their past service rendered in their parent department or organization. However, in some of cases the deputationists have been given some other benefits of their past service but not for the purpose of determination of .seniority but all these consequences are solely dependent upon the terms and conditions of deputation/transfer or absorption of deputationists, which is either governed in statutory rules of particular service or in absence thereof by executive order or office memo's of the department but no strait jacket formula for universal application in second category of cases can be evolved and each case can he examined independently on its own facts and statutory backdrop of that case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the submission of learned Counsel for ilk- petitioners that services of deputationists should invariably without having regard to the statutory backdrop of the case be counted from the date of their permanent absorption for the purpose of determination of seniority under Regulation 24(2) of Service Regulation 1981 appears to be without any legal basis and wholly misplaced, hence has to be rejected.