Point of Law: Refusal to grant NOC - Period of Deputation - Petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility condition for absorption and petitioners had no right to claim absorption.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

C.M. No. 23708/2021 (for exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 7575/2021

C.M. No. 23784/2021 (for exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 7608/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P. (C) No. 7575/2021 and C.M. No. 23707/2021 (for stay)

W.P. (C) No. 7608/2021 and C.M. No. 23783/2021 (for stay)

3. The nineteen petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7575/2021 and four petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7608/2021 who were appointed as Constables on various dates between 1990 and 2003 in different departments of the CAPFs, viz. the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Border Security Force (BSF), have filed the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning (i) the order dated 13th July, 2021 issued by the respondents repatriating the petitioners to their parent departments since ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) was refused to the petitioners for permanent absorption in the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and (ii) the relieving orders dated 14th July, 2021, in terms of which the petitioners have been relieved and directed to join their parent organizations. A further direction is sought for permanent absorption of the petitioners with CBI.

4. Since both petitions are based on common facts, involve similar issues and have been filed by the same counsel, they are being decided by a common judgment.

5. The petitioners applied for deputation with CBI and were selected for the said deputation for an initial period of three years between 2010 and 2014. In 2017 and 2018, applications were invited from deputationist constables who met the eligibility criteria for absorption in CBI. In August, 2018 the petitioners, along with other constables were short-listed to appear for personal assessment before the Screening Committee constituted by CBI. Based on the assessment by the Screening Committee, the respondents prepared a list of constables that included the petitioners, who were being considered for absorption in CBI and NOC was sought from their parent departments. On 4th July, 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) recommended seventy one CAPFs personnel for grant of NOC, however, the names of the petitioners were not recommended. Vide letter dated 31st July, 2019, CBI requested the MHA to expedite the cases of the remaining eighty one deputationist constables whose NOC was still awaited. On 12th July, 2021, MHA conveyed its refusal to grant NOC in respect of sixty nine constables, including the petitioners, to CBI and with a further request to relieve them to their respective parent cadre. On the basis of the aforesaid communication, CBI issued an order dated 13th July, 2021, directing repatriation of the said personnel, including the petitioners back to their parent department, on account of refusal of MHA issuing NOC with regard to their permanent absorption. Vide order dated 14th July, 2021, the petitioners were relieved from CBI with effect from 14th July, 2021 and directed to join their parent departments i.e. CRPF/BSF.

6. In W.P. (C) No. 7608/2021, parent departments of the petitioners found the petitioners to be ineligible for permanent absorption in CBI on the common ground of not having completed eighteen years of service.

7. Vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2021 in W.P. (C) No. 6892/2021 titled R. Sugumaram and Others vs. Union of India and Others and in W.P. (C) No. 6935/2021 titled Narender Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others (filed by the counsel herein), this Bench had dismissed petitions raising similar issues and claiming similar reliefs. In R. Sugumaram supra, while holding that there exists no vested right for absorption in the borrowing department, this Bench has observed as under:

“12. The issue that arises before the Court in the present cases is whether the petitioners have a right of being considered for absorption. It has been held in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court that deputationist