IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Kshitij Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 9449 of 2024 & CM Appl. No. 67808 of 2024 (for directions)
Decided On : 27-11-2024
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Employment of OCI cardholders in diplomatic missions - Requirement of special work permit for OCI cardholders to work in diplomatic missions as per notification dated 4th March, 2021 - The Court held that the Petitioner must comply with the requirement for a special work permit despite his eligibility for the position. (Paras 7, 8, 18)
(B) Reciprocity - The principle of reciprocity in diplomatic employment was emphasized, with the Court noting the absence of assurances from the UK regarding employment of Indian nationals, justifying the Respondents' caution. (Paras 19, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, an OCI cardholder, challenged the denial of his application for a special work permit required for employment at the British High Commission, which was denied due to procedural non-compliance and lack of justification for employing a third country national.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the Petitioner's request, affirming the necessity of compliance with diplomatic protocols and the principle of reciprocity in employment matters.
Issues: The main issues included the requirement for a special work permit for OCI cardholders and the principle of reciprocity in diplomatic employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the requirement for a special work permit is applicable to the Petitioner, and the absence of reciprocity undermines the basis for granting an exception in this case.
Result: Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Narula, J.
1. Mr. Kshitij Gupta, a citizen of the United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India, [“OCI”] has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He challenges the denial of his application for special work permission, as communicated to him on 3rd July, 2024 by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, [“FRRO”] Respondent No. 3. The permission was sought in connection with an employment offer extended to him by the British High Commission, New Delhi for the post of Country Based Clearance Officer at Grade – Executive Officer. The requirement for an OCI cardholder to obtain a special work permit, prior to employment in any diplomatic mission in India is stipulated in notification dated 4th March, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs., [“MHA”]
FACTURAL MATRIX
2. The backdrop leading to present petition is as follows:
2.1. The Petitioner is a citizen of the United States of America since 17th September, 2008 and was issued an OCI card on 28th September, 2009. He currently resides in New Delhi, India with his parents after returning from the U.S.A.
2.2. In October, 2023, the Petitioner applied for the role of Country Based Clearance Officer at Grade – Executive Officer at the British High Commission, New Delhi. After successfully navigating the selection process, he received an employment offer on 20th December, 2023, which he duly accepted.
2.3. Concurrently, the Petitioner initiated the process of obtaining the mandatory special work permit required for employment in diplomatic missions by submitting an application to the FRRO. His application was acknowledged on 15th December, 2023 and forwarded for further processing on 20th December, 2023. On 7th March, 2024, the British High Commission informed him that he had been placed on a reserved list effective 28th November, 2023. This list allows a 12-month period for candidates to secure a special work permit, failing which they may reapply for future opportunities.
2.4. While pursuing the matter with the MHA and the Consular, Passport and Visa Division of the Ministry of External Affairs, [“MEA”] the Petitioner was informed that his application required approval from the Protocol Division, MEA, owing to his status as a third country national. Ultimately, on 25th June, 2024, the online portal reflected the status of denial of Petitioner’s request.
2.5. Thereafter, on 3rd July, 2024, the FRRO formally intimated the decision and advised him to approach Protocol-III Division, MEA via the British High Commission.
2.6. Subsequently, on 30th July, 2024, the British High Commission formally requested Protocol-II Division, MEA to issue the requisite special work permit to the Petitioner. However, this request was declined by the MEA through a Note Verbale dated 19th October, 2024.
2.7. Aggrieved by these developments, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the Consular, Passport and Visa and Overseas Indian Affairs Division of MEA to issue a No-Objection Certificate, along with directions to the MHA to approve his application for a special work permit.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
3. In the above background, the counsel for Petitioner makes the following submissions:
3.1. Petitioner’s application for the special work permit is time-sensitive. While the MHA processed and forwarded the application expeditiously to the MEA, the procedural clearance by the MEA was inordinately delayed for over four months. Ultimately, the application was denied by the MEA on 25th June, 2024, without disclosing any reasons, rendering the Petitioner’s efforts futile.
3.2. During the pendency of his application, the British High Commission, New Delhi, advertised similar positions on two occasions—29th March, 2024 and 20th May, 2024. Had the special work permit been granted in a timely manner, the Petitioner could have secured employment.
3.3. The Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria and
The requirement for a special work permit for OCI cardholders in diplomatic missions is mandatory, and the principle of reciprocity must be established for employment of third country nationals.
The issuance of a Leave India Notice under the Foreigners Act is lawful when based on documented misrepresentation, upholding regulatory authority without violating natural justice requirements.
Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be restricted without established law; mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not justify denial ....
Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitio....
Point of Law : Travel restriction on accused - Recourse to issuance of LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws. It is also specified therein that in cases where th....
The court upheld the validity of the deemed resignation of a foreign service officer for exceeding the maximum tenure on deputation, confirming adherence to departmental guidelines and principles of ....
The main legal point established is the requirement for procedural safeguards in the issuance of Look Out Circulars, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and a fair, just, and reaso....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.