The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility of a candidate for a deputation post must be determined based on the specified criteria in the notification and relevant regulations, and the court may distinguish previous judgments based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a) Quash the order No.10/121/2016-NCLT (Pt.II)-88 dated 17.02.2021 issued by the respondent No. 2 by which the offer of appointment sent to the petitioner for the post of Joint Registrar on deputation basis in NCLT, Hyderabad Bench is cancelled and the Communication No.3/1(3546)/Law-59/2020 dated 12.02.2021 of the respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was informed that "the matter has been examined by Ministry of Mines in consultation with DoPT and accordingly decided that the Officer cannot be relieved from a higher grade pay/scale of pay to a post in the lower grade pay/scale as per rules";

and

b) direct the respond No. 2 to appoint the petitioner on deputation as Joint Registrar at NCLT Hyderabad;

c) Pass any other or further order which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper, in facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. The facts as noted from the petition are that respondent No.2, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT, for short), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, had on August 16, 2018 invited applications for various posts including the post of Joint Registrar for NCLT Benches at various places including Allahabad, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai, on deputation basis. The said post was in Pay Band-4 in the scale of Rs. 37,400 Rs. 67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700/- revised to Level-13 in Pay Matrix of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC, for short). The petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was working as Director (P&A) in the Geological Survey of India, in Pay Level-13, had applied for the post of Joint Registrar on deputation basis. After submission of the application, vide Memorandum dated November 19, 2020 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director General (P&A) in Pay Level-14 effective from December 4, 2019.

3. That on January 15, 2020, a communication was issued by the NCLT calling upon the petitioner to appear for interview to be held on January 28, 2020. The petitioner did appear before the Selection Committee for interview on January 28, 2020. The petitioner having been found successful in the interview process, a communication dated September 2, 2020 was issued by the respondent No.2 / NCLT to the Director General of the Geological Survey of India, Kolkata calling upon him to relieve the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter to enable the petitioner to report for duty at NCLT, Hyderabad Bench. It appears, pursuant thereto, the petitioner vide his communication dated September 4, 2020 requested the respondent No.3, i.e., the Director General, Geological Survey of India to relieve him from his duties in the said organization on or before September 16, 2020 to enable him to report to the authorities at Hyderabad. It appears that on January 12, 2021, respondent No. 3 in a communication to the petitioner giving reference to his request for relieving him to join the post of Joint Registrar, NCLT, Hyderabad Bench on deputation basis, conveyed to him that the same has not been approved by the competent authority, which made the petitioner to have a legal notice issued to the respondent No.3 citing a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 7 SCC 757, requesting the authorities to relieve him to join the post in question. Subsequently, vide communication dated February 12, 2021, respondent No. 3 reiterated its stand that the matter has been examined by the Ministry of Mines in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T, for short) and accordingly it was decided that an officer cannot be relieved from a higher grade pay/ scale of pay to a post in the lower grade pay/ scale of pay as per rules. Pursuant thereto, even the respondent No.2 vide its communication dated February 17, 2021 to the